I wrote this for here: Insert “swindle” joke here.
Shame to waste, as it will pretty much serve to explain what I was up to all weekend.
I usually figure it's not worth posting by the time blog replies hit a hundred, because if I cannot be bothered to read past the first few score (I just did, before hitting 'submit', and realise that about half a dozen folk are just lobbing entrenched viewpoints to and fro, backed by ever more unscientific 'support' for arguments) why would anyone do the same to get as far as mine?
But as I have been away, it is topical to what I was doing and, goshdarnit, it's good practice for my blog, so it's not really a total waste after all. At least for me.
This weekend I was in both Cardiff and Plymouth, pitching in a NESTA competition called FameLab, which is all about bringing science, and an appreciation of same, to the viewing public. So, inspired in no small measure by the IPCC report, the Channel 4 doco and the discussion on this very blog a few days ago, as I had nothing else prepared I decided to spout forth on 'Sick Planet Syndrome; Myths and Facts. Causes and Cures'.
The first day was an unmitigated disaster, as I hadn't prepared very well and also had an arc lamp in my eyes for the precise 3 minutes one got to hold forth, and hence failed to see the 20' countdown signal, thus missing my conclusion.
This was that, at present, either camp could be right. Or wrong... evidently, at least as far as the masses might be concerned. (I have a personal view, of course).
Sadly, getting this in when I did manage to say it the next day didn't help much. I even wore a black cowboy hat for 'big oil climate denying science' and a jaunty white eco-hat for 'we're toast, green taxes all round' science, to make my point that not all science (especially green) was, could be or should be black or white, pro or con, with nothing allowed in between. On reflection, it may also have not helped that for the former viewpoint I also said a big 'Yee-haa!" to camera and big-upped the doco, as Ch4 is one of the sponsors.
And speaking of not helping, I also opined it certainly wasn't doing much of value knocking spots off each other by such methods - used by opposing groups, and played up by a compliant if not complicit media - as attacking the person, or who is backing them or whatever, and not the facts.
My jury (or rather judging panel) of eminent scientists and TV producers were still not impressed. For this show they wanted... needed a conclusion. A solution as I had promised. That was my whole point. I had offered one, at least as I saw it, which was accepting there WAS NOT always a definitive conclusion, and you can often need to act before you have one, on the best you've got. I guess that's the Civil Engineer in me kicking in. We prefer things not to fall over and will move to shore things up before they topple, Tower of Pisa notwithstanding.
So much in science is a journey rather than a destination, and it can be fun to share the ride rather than dispense a unidirectional commentary.
But if the train is rattling around a bit maybe I believe it would be best to stop the rocking (I would say of the boat, but that would be a mixed metaphor too far) and simply work together on stabilising it now, rather than keeping thrashing about trying to prove who is right or wrong on whether it will fall off the rails before getting to the end-point.
No, it seems quick fixes, soundbites and being seen to be 'righter and brighter' rather than just doing better is the order of the day. Questions being posed and left open are not favoured when answers abound, even if they are poorly founded ones. Or, possibly, just plain wrong. Delivery, with a neat opening, middle and ending that leaves nothing for the imagination, or the individual to ponder or discover for themselves, is to be ruthlessly enforced. It seems that the last thing anyone from the [insert (profession)-elite here] wants is the masses actually having an opinion or trying to influence how their lives are directed rather than those who know better.
I think I understand now why I get so agitated by science reporting these days. These guys are not required by a huge 'system' to allow anything trouble the viewer by way of loose ends. Hence with climate change: 'the planet is doomed... for this reason'. Period. Or, 'the planet is fine... for this reason'. Period. Nice soundbite. Nice headline. Nice ratings.
Not awfully helpful, though, when we're not too sure.
I'd like to wish all well and scoot off to another place where I can work with those from science and media (and government and commerce, and...) who are more concerned with moving on whilst trying to locate a tangible negotiated result, rather than staying still to bully through unconditional, theoretical Pyrrhic victories. But sadly the venue options on this planet are looking limited. And just getting there may open up a whole new can of worms.
Seems I might owe Richard Branson an apology. Maybe Virgin Galactic is the best chance we've got. But bumping some billionaire from his Kodak moment atop a cloud of greenhouse gasses seems such a compromised way of doing it, and there is the small matter of effecting the swap.
Bad Science. Naughty Science. No wonder the majority of the public switches off. And of those who do try to stay with it, like my mate Nick (a computer science grad), when both sides get in the gutter the more optimistic option being espoused often gets a more willing ear. So now I have to work a bit harder to keep him of the view that waiting until the Durkin's of this world are proved 100% wrong may not be the best plan for now. Or, indeed, the future. What are my chances?
STOP PRESS: Here's the promo in my in-box from the nation's broadcaster for tonight:
MONDAY 12 MARCH 22:30 GMT - BBC TWO
FROM GAVIN ESLER
CLIMATE CHANGE
As Gordon Brown and David Cameron compete on being greener-than-thou, we examine the science once again. Despite the fact that most reputable scientists agree that human activity in raising carbon emissions is leading to global warming, could they - in fact - be wrong?
ADDENDUM:
I remain impressed with the principle of Bad Science, and for sure a lot of the intellectual firepower, but sadly not so much the practice. There is too much a sense of being 'in with the in crowd', which to me weakens the objectivity of the comments, and I think reflects poorly on the moderator which, in this case, is the principal.
I'm intrigued.
Firstly that anyone still checks back this far, and secondly would post at 5:52pm to ask someone who last posted at 12.47pm to give up, when there have been several posts subsequently. Unless that tricky in/out missing post thing has cropped up again to catch the likes of me out too.
But mainly I'm interested in why EssTee may be deemed to be embarrassing themselves and, hence, why they should be required to give up.
I may not agree with some or indeed all of what they are saying, but there are some interesting points being made that I will take the time to assess, along with others.
And having been witness to, and indeed too often (for my blood pressure) a participant in escalating flame wars, I can't see some of the accusations that have managed to gang up on poor old EssTee to be entirely warranted.
To this infrequent, though interested visitor, it's coming across as rather too cosy a club, and a rather one-sided one at that.
Which does not seem very healthy for debate.
EssTee, for what's it's worth, as far as I am concerned you can keep on banging away. I'd avoid addressing anything other than the facts, and rising to the bait of those who would tempt you in venturing into unproductive areas.
But when you are on the facts, please try and ensure that they are as good as you can make them, with appropriate attribution, and let them speak for themselves.
With luck, and reasoned arguments put forward by those with differing opinions, I may come to a reasonable opinion of my own.
I may even decide such a forum is worth adding it to. I admire your courage, if not your standpoint and aspects of style, because this is not a playing field that seems very level, and the ball is too easily threatened with retraction should one look like playing for any but the home team.
ADD-ADDENDUM
A pleasant enough reply overnight. Actually, the point made got me to thinking about the function of and difference between a Blog with comments and a Forum. Junkk.com has both. I must confess to being woeful at dipping in to our own Forum and due to time constraints rather shamefully leave it to others. I am trying to solicit a team of moderators.
Because, with the obvious concern on accusations of agenda-driven 'censorship', I appreciate the role of the originator in keeping things on track. I, for one, would not allow attacking the person rather than the message without comment and even censure.
Thanks Deano,
I didn't know about the Forum. I just get the odd email from Ben with a link, and this one was a major flag to click on for me. What comments are meant for posting here then?
And while I came to it only late in the day I couldn't resist pitching in to this one (it is quite topical in the news as most will gather, and my major concern is the consuming public's take on it all). And again later as I did feel that very good rebuttals of poor, over-edited or agenda-driven mantras were being eroded by sharing a sea of poor, over-edited or agenda-driven mantras.
So actually, I now have a lot to worry about. I already spend waaaaay too much time on major media blogs and forums sifting away in the hope (frequently satisfied, more often than not frustrated) of sensible debate and worthwhile information and directions to tangible areas of worthwhile activity.
I rather suspect, and the evidence here presents a concern, that anything that does not toe a majority line may need to stand ready for a 'robust' challenge - which may well be warranted and even demanded - and one can only hope that this will be the facts and not the person or pejorative groupings.
Sadly, despite this it looks like a rich seam, so there goes the social life even more!
No comments:
Post a Comment