Tuesday, March 13, 2007

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'

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

The concept of using spurious misinformation to support demialist arguments has been, and is, their only option in the face of a large majority scientific consensus.

For C4 to sponsor such claptrap, using a previously discredited producer, is appaling, and to allow them get away with 'misrepresenting' a key contributors input(Prof. Wunsch) is disgraceful. All programs such as this have done is to create a great deal of confusion amongst the common man, and, even worse, many who were seriously concerned are now announcing that GW is all rubbish because it said so on TV!!

To quote one poster on the Real Climate (and you should get all your readers to scan through this entire set of posts - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/ )

site (Chris) - "I guess it's possible to imagine, being charitable to the C4 executives, that they thought commissioning this may foster debate. It's a misconception - dissemination of information fosters debate; dissemination of misinformation only fosters confusion.

As far as the denialists are concerned, that is number one objective achieved!!

Emma said...

When I see you have posted I know we may be limbering up for a 'bit of a do... debate'. Were it that more could not set out to do so in as civilised a manner.

I am thinking of backing off this whole thing. It is so critical, but so unproductive. My interest is in motivating the masses, and this, well, isn't even motivating me any more. It's simply spinning in ever decreasing circles.

I have a rational view on things combined with, I hope, a postive approach to addressing some issues dear to me.

I don't see much value in being right if one is not getting there by doing right first.

But as I cannot be so rude as to ignore your commitement of time here, let me offer a few thoughts...

By my own estimation, the concept of using spurious misinformation and massive campaigns of attacking the man, not the message, to support various extreme, and costly pro-environment arguments has been, and is, the main option of the pro movement. I'm sick of al of 'em.

And I'm even more sick of the media egging each 'side' on for their own ends.

In all the blogs worldwide rebutting this Ch4 doco, most end up pointing to one site: real climate. I haven't looked at it, yet, but what is it that makes them any more objective?

And please don't tell me it is pushing only one side of the case, because I have also had it with 'proof' being offered from such sources. They simply end up as another Howitzer brought in to lob entrenched rounds over to the other side.

I simply don't have the time to check the checkers. That used to be the job of a skilled and objective proxy in the form of a professional and trusted media, but this no longer exists.

So you are, sadly, right in your conclusion. I just can't figure out why so many would be so keen to commit gene pool suicide if some were not at least sincere and believed in their own science.

Speaking of which, so far I cannot adequately locate how Prof. Wunsch's science was misrepresented, if not his beliefs, and so I look forward to having it adequately explained. Which means Ch 4 will have a task ahead once that is cleared up.

But I'm afraid that, as a pretty common man, both sides are to blame in helping all this come to pass. Which leaves me questioning the right and abilities of the current GW/CC elite lobby crop to keep on browbeating us if they are being so unnsuccessful.

If my sense of where we're headed is accurate, we need to create a movement where the middle ground is represented, and in ways that actually move and motivate the masses.

Anonymous said...

Who checks the checkers? Now that really IS the question!! I wish I had some answers for you. Real Climate IS run by Real Climatic Scientists - well, errr, well, hmmm, at least that is what I honestly thought before I read your question.

In terms of 'proof' - well, pick up whichever hand of cards you want and see if anything fits - there can be no absolutes when scientists are dealing with postulates. But, to provide you with some additional real data, check out the link below if you want a really graphic demonstration of just where the CO2 level has got to. Irrespective of the T lags CO2 or CO2 lags temperature argument (of which there are many), the levels that the ice core samples show is a genuine climatic fluctuation. But where the level is now is certainly NOT where it ought to be and it sure scares the hell out of me!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

It is a copy of the data from the actual published research (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt if you want to download it yourself) from the Vostok ice core analyses – and unlike some of the ‘scientific’ graphs shown on C4 last week is has not been skewed, distorted or manipulated in any way.

Current prediction (I read this somewhere the other day but cannot locate it again for now, so I'm relying on my aging memory for the figures, though it probably doesn't actually matter that much, it's all relative anyway) is that CO2 levels will pass 400ppm (approaching 390ppm now) within the next 3 to 4 years max. The so called ‘tipping point’ mentioned by the IPCC is postulated (good word as nobody can tie you down to anything as fact!!) to be anything from 480 to >800ppm, or even more; but, of course, nobody really knows what that may, or may not, actually mean to our planet, or indeed whether there is any semblance of accuracy in it; and it is only a postulated level, not an empirically fixed point. Chuck some darts in a board whilst wearing a blindfold and come up with your own guess.

Like you, I’m getting rather cheesed off with the whole CC/GW/AGW bunfight – it’s almost not a debate any more, it’s become more a game of political / scientific / climatic / social / fiscal & taxation / carbon (delete whichever you feel not applicable) points scoring; with both sides willing to manipulate, obfuscate, misinform and even lie to get their point across the line first. As you have stated on several occasions – it is beginning to feel like we're watching the last shuffleboard game on the Titanic.

Treat the Earth well. It was not given to you by your parents. It was loaned to you by your children.” Kenyan Proverb.

Perhaps we need to modify that and add “and stolen from them by your politicians”?