I had to weigh in on a discussion prompted by the reporting of the opening up of the Northwest Passage for [insert time period here according to relative MMGW persuasion]
'.. if we're likely to see Dr. David G. on the news explaining the lack of evidence for man-made global warming'
Not quite fair. If the combined might of everyone from the IPCC to RealClimate can't 'prove' anything one way or another to the satisfaction of all then I doubt he could... or should be asked to. Though the BBC’s role in sharing pertinent, objective information is of course both topical and of interest.
As previously head-above-parapetted, personally I think there is climate change; it is negative; it is getting worse and it is worth looking at ways to mitigate man's possible influences. And pronto. But I do have some strong views on how, and how the current cabal of government, media, interest groups and activists are clouding an already murky issue to the extent that the general public are kicking back.
So I do think flying a reporter up to an iceberg to do a noddy in front of a snowman sends out a mixed message at best. And every time I see a twee reporter skipping around a G-Wiz saying it doesn't pollute it makes me wince.
The message is too important to be compromised by sloppy reporting or pandering to targets or box ticking agendas. And I especially feel every overkill story sets the cause of rational argument back by giving those who are more vocal in their ‘optimism’ (I find denier to be a pejorative) a chance to attack detail at the expense of the bigger picture.
Speaking of which...
I was wondering if any from the BBC, and perhaps the Department of Denial that is JR (though I'd prefer a more qualified and less selective responder) has any thoughts on the BBC erring on the side of the 'green trap' policy wisdom by the government in terms of political discussion (the Conservatives and Lib Dems and Greens all being a tad more considered, if often confused, in at least discussing options, and often unpopular ones) whilst bombarding us with ‘we're all doomed scenarios on ice’ that may just be coincidental in the great climatic scheme of things. Or getting a set of Islington knickers in a twist on issues which, while certainly part of the overall scheme of things, are less of a priority or concern right now than, say, home insulation or deforestation.
I was amongst a covey of 'mentalists (I am one!) last night who had ventured out from the big city in their Priuses (nothing like lugging a battery down the M4 to make you feel good about the planet) . But perhaps Tewksbury was the wrong place to suggest that 4x4s and bottled water were not necessary, especially when we find out just how well our political masters have, are and might be thinking of handling the consequences of avoiding the green trap with their flood plans.
ADDENDUM - I GOT MODERATED!!!!
For this:
I do not want or intend to get into a 'tis/t'isn't MMGW argument (they go nowhere and simply consume precious energy pointlessly), but simply share this 'for the pot':
Sustainability: A Nobel Cause
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=481
Ignoring all the warmly-debated science, I merely note who is chatting, and the key fact that they do not seem to be obsessing too much on matters of idealism, rather cold hard cash.
I have great respect for RealClimate (though the posters are getting a little more feisty of late - I like my science objective), and hence the comments in reply to the original post make for equally interesting reading by way of balance.
And noting the mere hint that a pol is doing stuff not for the mid/far future but to prop up economics now really does damage.
[Peter, I'm afraid you can't say "I don't want to get into an argument about this", and then present a provocative article! The Moderator.]
Peter | Homepage | 10.10.07 - 10:59 am | #
I'm afraid I felt to delete my post (and leave in what they did) like this was unwarranted:
OK, stick the RealClimate article I featured back up without that opener (I guess you'll have to delete that - but will it remain in Googlecache?), along with the rest of my thoughts on how it and the post in reply highlighted some interesting politico/media MMGW issues and how people can respond to them.
I'll then let the various extremes fight over whether 'it' exists at all whilst missing the actual point.
I will then engage or not if I so wish. Happy?
As it stands, and perhaps despite my poor wording, I'd say the chop you have instigated serves the cause of moderation poorly. I'd have thought leaving the totality up and saying what you think about it to be more appropriate. I don't think anything I wrote contravened any of the site rules. I just shared some info pertinent to the thread and in advance advised I was not terribly keen on arguing about something no one knows about for sure one way or another yet.
Currently no one has a clue what you/we are on about.
That serves who well, exactly?
Their site. Their ball. Their loss.
ADDENDUM:
It went up. And then it got deleted. An interesting insight into the actions of those who talk of bias.
ADDENDUM 2:
Another day, and the possibility of another moderator. So I popped this in.
Removing the option of the public to comment! Now who'd do a thing like that?
bob | 11.10.07 - 8:04 am | #
Can't imagine. But, as oft noted, it is free and the owner's ball to play with. See how long this stays up.
ps: I put in a link to RealClimate to make a point on the MMGW 'debate' being about 'tis/t'isn't happening (at all) vs. looking ahead at reasonable solutions. Shame no one got a chance to see, much less comment on it and my sloppy first line was used as an excuse to whip out the entire (pretty innocuous) rest of the post.
Peter | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 9:55 am | #
I might be heading for my first ban, which will be a milestone! Shame, as I do value some of what gets discovered, shared and discussed, but not when the discussions get steered in the same way as the entity they purport to accuse of dodgy practices.
ADDENDUM 3:
A challenge:
Peter:
[The Moderator: Peter, if you want to discuss our moderation policy, e-mail us on biasedbbc@googlemail.com (but in short, off-topic comments are likely to be deleted).]
Peter | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 9:55 am | #
Thank you for the opportunity for discussion.
I think BBBC has some fine minds at work, and I value the information I glean. As well as the debate.
Sadly, I rather felt the moderation in the case that prompted my subsequent comment to have been an example more of what the BBC is often accused of, with reason, and seriously affected my view of the site as a consequence.
The piece in question was on a thread concerning climate change, which has been very much in the news and indeed on the BBBC site on numerous occasions, but really quite frequently of late, as associated with Mr. Gore's movie and Nobel.
My point in the 'moderated' piece has been quite eloquently made by subsequent events, namely that anything regarding sensible debate on anything climatic gets immediately co-opted into two extreme camps: the so-called 'deniers' and the 'green at all costers', with suitable descriptive ing/ist/zi perjoratives added to taste, and a lot of playing the man and not the ball.
I'd guess that most on BBBC fall into the former. OK, it's a private blog. Most in the BBC fall into the latter. No so fair enough, as they are my public broadcaster. I get very unhappy when I read about such as Roger Harrabin's qualifications and editorial memos or Mr. Gore's various less than noble activities. Not because I don't think there is a climate issue, or indeed that man might well be rather unhelpful, but because I don't think the negative exposure these inaccuracies and exaggeration and secret agendas in the cause of 'doing what's best' for 'the people' are working or help. Especially when they boomerang.
So I am dedicated to information, and as well shaped opinion as I can get it. Which is why I watch BBC and read BBBC. The truth is often in the middle.
And hence I like to share as well, to see what might come back.
All I said is that I didn't want to get into a pointless MMGW argument. For a start, to my best assessment, even though that acronym is used by rather extreme 'denier' posters, the fact of man's causing it is nowhere to be found. I allow for possibly 'man worsened' at best.
And my post discussed that, cited highly valid sources such as Real Climate, but also quoting Chancellor Merkel to show how where you start from in this issue always pretty much predicts where the argument will end up.
Yet all this was deleted. What was left was the first line, alluding to 'a provocative article'. On the basis of my saying I didn't want the argument hijacked in the usual direction it always does.
How that is off topic fails me. But if as I presume you refer to my dropping a point about editing to support a view in a thread about the BBC doing just that, I'd say a little self-analysis may be in order.
Here's the sequence as you may have deleted it all and Google cache may not be available: (see above).
Keep up the good work. Try and stop the less so.
Didn't take long. I got a reply.
We delete a *lot* of comments every day. I don't know why you have
presumed it's just yours that has been deleted (or why you have
presumed that we only delete comments that we don't agree with).
Perhaps it's because we usually just delete a post without comment,
which we didn't do in your case (because of your newbie status). Or
perhaps it's because you're very much a "me" blogger.
We get far more comments on global warming than we want, and we
delete a lot of them. They are by far the most numerous category of
comments that we delete. About 90% of those that we delete are
arguing *against* the existence and/or severity of GW. (Similarly,
about 90% of the comments we delete are taking an anti-BBC line). It
is simply not justified for you to assume that you were deleted
because you didn't "toe a party line".
We do leave some comments on GW in, but only the better, more
relevant and more concise ones. You gave us a good excuse to delete
yours because you said you were "adding one for the pot", which
created the impression that you were leaving us something that would
create a blizzard of comments which you could step away from. In
addition, we had noticed that you had a tendency for long, rambling
off-topic comments, and we're not very interested in that.
If you want to discuss GW in-depth online, then I suggest you go to a
dedicated site.
I'll leave it all in, critique and all. You know what? They're right. Sometimes I do post over-long screeds. I may even ramble, though I'd like to think that without the benefit of time it is just exploring all the options. We live in a sound bite culture that suffers from the whole issue not being considered properly.
As to the rest, I'd say quite breathtaking, defevensive, illogical arrogance. Not a little less than pleasant, too, as I was invited to get in touch. And as they have admitted to an approach of censoring what they feel like, I can't see they are any different to the BBC TV/online efforts they critique for being 'selective', or what they call biased.
I'll still use 'em to find stuff. But as for their status as an online place of even debate, for me at least, their reputation is shot. I have learned a lot about moderation from this, and I hope it will make my blog the better for it.
Plus my RSI might improve.
No comments:
Post a Comment