It's not just what you say, but who hears it that matters most

Scenes from the denialist denoument

All very well 'n good.

For those who may not have had a chance to see it, you can get a flavour of the offending piece here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk ... for now.

I'm afraid that no matter what else I may think, I would feel unable to dismiss it as standard hackery, even if I think I understand what that term is trying to conjure up.

I'd hazard that, to your average Joe on their sofa, this is slick, calm, considered, credible, easy on the eye and ear, with a large selection of talking heads with impressive titles (the co-founder of Greenpeace! That blew me away, I have to admit, though being unaware for now what the back story is or may be. Doubtless I will be advised that he is 'discredited'). I also have to say that some of the factual footage of techniques used to discredit these 'deniers' was handled... convincingly.

I might add that it's all a bit like stuff I get fed by what might call the 'other side'.

So I was/am seduced in part, and will have to delve more to try and weigh what is said and by whom against alternatives. Hence I will try to get what may approximate to actuality inbetween the two, sadly usually as served up by compliant and/or often complicit media with agendas of their own (principally this is a rating point rather than any desire to educate of inform objectively, else we would see well-balanced debates stocked with all sides. So the remark about the environmental journalism industry having a vested interest in keeping the frenzy at fever pitch is noted, but rather undermined by the fact that there seems a very healthy anti-environmentalism industry turning a healthy buck too. It would be nice to get past all this, move on and let the whole lot get a real job at Starbucks).

Most time-poor folk are unlikely to do so.

So it's possibly a shame that the majority of the UK population, and even those who tuned in to Against Nature, won't ever read George Monbiot's rebuttal, as opposed to watching a primetime TV show or even a more highbrow niche news piece, such as BBC 2's Newsnight - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/03/monday_12_march_2007.html

If it caused a sensation anywhere, it's not too much as that was about all I could find here by way of mass media.

He makes good points, but it's also a pity all comment is closed on Mr. Monbiot's piece (the link is to his own site) already. However, I am not sure he is too worried about critics: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/0230/83316... look out Richard Branson (and those who stand beside him), George is watching!

I just wanted to ask what 'syllogism' meant. I'm personally of the view that staying so highbrow is not the best way to get the punters onside with anything else you may go on to say, though I'm sure it makes your posh mates dead impressed and start blogging away in awe.

But, if we are really trying to effect positive change, whose interests are being served first, if at all, by such an approach?

If you can be bothered, here's a link to another very heavy set of academic to & fros to see an example of death match shuffleboard on the Titanic, with the winner left to rearrange the deckchairs.

http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/weekend-of-planet-report.html

All together now... hit it, Celine...!

Back to the shed. I don't know what I don't know. But I do know that it has to be worth any and all ways to do things to reduce waste, improve efficiencies and, at least, consider acceptable ways to start reduction.

Ignoring GW/CC completely, simple maths shows the value of this. One spherical planet, with a finite livable area with an equally finite area for sustaining resources. And an ever-expanding population, many of whom can afford and even more of whom will soon be able to afford all sorts of 'stuff' and travel.

There has to be a point where that circle cannot be squared.

Speaking of going in circles: Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change

(with a few tweaks)

I came here via a US post that called the programme, 'standard hackery', and a follow-up which pointed at this article. I'm afraid that no matter what else I may think, I would feel unable to dismiss it in such a way, even if I think I understand what that term is trying to conjure up.

I'd hazard that, to your average Joe on their sofa, this is slick, calm, considered, credible, easy on the eye and ear, with a large selection of talking heads with impressive titles (the co-founder of Greenpeace! That blew me away, I have to admit, though being unaware for now what the back story is or may be. Doubtless I will be advised that he is 'discredited'). I also have to say that some of the factual footage of techniques used to discredit these 'deniers' was handled... convincingly.

I might add that it's all a bit like stuff I get fed by what might be called the 'other side'.

So I was/am seduced in part, and will have to delve more to try and weigh what is said and by whom against alternatives. Hence I will try to get what may approximate to actuality inbetween the two, sadly usually as served up by compliant and/or often complicit media with agendas of their own (principally this is a rating point rather than any desire to educate of inform objectively, else we would see well-balanced debates stocked with all sides. So the remark about the environmental journalism industry having a vested interest in keeping the frenzy at fever pitch is noted, but rather undermined by the fact that there seems a very healthy anti-environmentalism industry turning a healthy buck too. It would be nice to get past all this, move on and let the whole lot get a real job at Starbucks).

Most time-poor folk are unlikely to do so.

So it's possibly a shame that the majority of the UK population, and even those who tuned in to Against Nature, won't ever read this rebuttal, as opposed to watching a primetime TV show or even a more highbrow niche news piece, such as BBC 2's Newsnight - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/03/monday_12_march_2007.html

I just wanted to ask what 'syllogism' meant. I'm personally of the view that staying so highbrow is not the best way to get the punters onside with anything else you may go on to say, though I'm sure it makes your posh mates dead impressed and start blogging away in awe. You can blind people with science. Shame if that renders them deaf to reason as well.

But, if we are really trying to effect positive change, whose interests are being served first, if at all, by such an approach?

If you can be bothered, here's a link to another very heavy set of academic to & fros to see an example of death match shuffleboard on the Titanic, with the winner left to rearrange the deckchairs.

http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/weekend-of-planet-report.html

All together now... hit it, Celine...!

Back to the shed. I don't know what I don't know. But I do know that it has to be worth any and all ways to do things to reduce waste, improve efficiencies and, at least, consider acceptable ways to start reduction.

Ignoring GW/CC completely, simple maths shows the value of this. One spherical planet, with a finite livable area with an equally finite area for sustaining resources. And an ever-expanding population, many of whom can afford and even more of whom will soon be able to afford all sorts of 'stuff' and travel.

There has to be a point where that sphere cannot be cubed.

Guardian - Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming' - How does one dupe a scientist to refute his science?
Indy - Carl Wunsch: I should never have trusted Channel 4
Times - C4’s debate on global warming boils over
Indy Letters
Telegraph - Arctic ice hits 'tipping point'