The e-blogosphere, from Newsnight to BBC is Biased, is humming a tad on this: Inconvenient verdict delivered on Gore's climate change film
As stated before, I can't for the life of me figure how it has come to this. The thing is pretty much ancient history anyway, and AG has a new version (with solutions) coming, and there are two others I am aware of (Leonardo di Caprio's and another whose name escapes me) which are also more proactive available.
Bearing in mind this is the Indy I find this rather telling: 'But, in a somewhat more damaging move, the judge forensically examined the documentary's "one-sided" case and found "nine scientific errors" in its content.'
But this is where I get annoyed, not with the 'deniers', but those who keep handing them easy ways to cast doubts: 'Yesterday's ruling will no doubt be greeted with glee among climate-change deniers.' I am seeing it in every post out there. And the other stuff, the actual worrying stuff, gets ignored in the noise.
And in the spirit of 'two wrongs..', I could give a stuff that '...green opponents [how is it so clear cut as all pro vs all no/] have come under similar criticisms over their own claims on the hotly contested issue. '
I just want to know what we know, and no more and no less, and be guided as best I can to do what is best for my kids' futures. The only winners here are those who thrive under a cloud of controversy. And there are a lot of them on both 'sides'.
BBC - Gore climate film's 'nine errors'
'... this controversy could encourage the public to think there was scientific doubt about the facts of climate change.' Ya think?
Guardian - Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge
Newsnight - Wednesday, 10 October, 2007
Having now watched this, I wish politicians of all hues (and a few media types, though JP was a noble exception in referring to 'us', I believe, as 'they', which I presume to be a separate breed of human to those who haunt studios) would resist from telling me what I think when I haven't been asked. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has the rest of the country in any meaningful way.
It makes it very hard to stay objective on what IS happening and gets DONE, and resist reacting and seeking the exact opposite just as payback for the presumption.
Which brings me to the world being consumed in a ball of fire by next Tuesday. Or... not.
The eco-blogosphere is humming a bit on this.
And I really can't for the life of me figure how it has come to this. The piece (as noted) is pretty much ancient history anyway, and AG has a new version (with solutions) coming, and there are two others I am aware of (Leonardo diCaprio's and another whose name escapes me) which are also more proactive available. So what the government was/is doing punting it out anyway escapes me.
Where I do get annoyed in this is with those who keep handing climate optimists easy ways to cast doubts. I am seeing it in every post out there. While the other stuff, the actual for real worrying stuff, gets ignored in the noise.
And in the spirit of 'two wrongs..', I could give a stuff that '...green opponents [how is it so clear cut as all pro vs all no?] have come under similar criticisms over their own claims on the hotly contested issue', as I read by way of a comeback in the paper. It's always extremes.
So we get a guy up against JP, whose job it is to seek weaknesses in argument and tear them apart, and I am left with ' 'bits' of it were... um... wrong, but not wrong'? Do what? On this basis what else could get the green ('scuse pun) light to be aired at school, so long as it comes with a teacher's disclaimer training manual. I know how that is going to go down having run it by my own kids; 'Er, dad, what are you on about???'. I want them educated in more than box-ticking.
And, as an aside, I was not aware that 'we' 'know' that climate change IS man-made. I am passionately committed to practical (a lot in that), effective (even more there) reduction and/or mitigation on an urgent basis, but just on a slightly different one that I, personally, 'believe', which is 'man' and our activities sure may not be helping much.
And if the MMCC absolute does get disproved (which in some other ways I pray it does, though my business plan might need changing a tad once the party starts) or even just further chipped away, it sets back the entreaties of the less dogmatic advocates. Cry wolf, anyone?
Like greenwashing ads, why push the claim to the point that it is shown to be hyped, or worse false, and undo all the other good the brand has been building? I know it can seem so urgent to some (me inc.) that any means necessary can be tempting to take to get the message out, but not if this is the result.
I can only speak personally to say I just want to know what 'we' know now - no more and no less, with all caveats - and to be guided as best I can be to do what is best for my kids' futures.
The only winners here are those who thrive under a cloud of controversy. And there are a lot of them on both 'sides' feeding off this as we speak.
Green cannot be viewed just in black and white.
ADDENDUM
* 33.* Baz wrote:
Thank you for this. As one interested but who cannot face the prospect of wading through mammoth reports I can't complain so much if I rely on those who do if the information I get is 'selective'.
I have been convinced enough by what I have been served up to concede that there is the distinct possibility of Man-worsened Climate Change, and even if this ends up being proven in error there seems no great harm in a cautious approach to our race's activities from now on. In any case, moderation, cutting down/out pollution and prevention of waste are no bad things to practice simply in financial terms.
Semantically, do I read this as saying it's a given that climate change in human-induced? You obviously did. I could see it more as looking at 'whether', which seems valid.
That said, I have heard the BBC's main enviro spokespersons/experts (whose qualifications are?) refer to the 'fact' that climate change is caused by man. Is it?
Because then there is also such as this: "the risk is the public might misunderstand what campaigners are saying with what the scientists are actually finding out."
Quite.
2 comments:
I find it strange that the judge actually stated that the film was "broadly accurate", yet few of the UK press reports comment on this.
As for the scientific evidence, there are arguments for and against many of the items the judge highlighted.
Kilimanjaro - yes, the judge is correct - there is no definitive scientific evidence that the snow cap is disappearing as a result of climate change. But it is disappearing, and surely increasing temperatures might just have something to do with it?
Pacific Islands - no evidence of migration? Tell that to the 4,000 plus who have already emigrated from Tuvalu to New Zealand. (As we reported back in July.)
The Greenland ice sheet taking millennia to melt? That's what all the scientists thought ten years ago - yet the evidence is that it is melting far faster than anyone thought possible (see our post from September on this very subject)
Any of these items are subject to scientific discussion and debate, and the evidence gathering that is required to reach definitive conclusions is exactly what the scientific community is doing at this very moment.
OK, so Al Gore may well have exaggerated some points somewhat, and others (like the drowning polar bears) were clearly not substantively evidential to the message he was trying to get across, on top of which, much of the message comes across with a highly political slant.
However, at the end of the day, the film has finally roused the American masses from their slumber and many now realise that they can, and may even have to, do their bit, so to speak.
The judge has ordered that the film can continue to shown, but with additional guidance, and "as long as it is accompanied by material from the climate change-denial fraternity."
I'm all for that - give the kids both sides of the argument and let them make up their own minds - its only fair isn't it?
Dave, we rarely disagree. But in this case it is on messengers if not message.
As with Live Earth/Planet Relief/Greenwashing, my greater concern is how this plays with the unpersuaded public, not a convert like you (or me).
The few excesses have proven an Achilles Heel easily and effectively exploited.
So sorry, 'broadly accurate' is about as much use as a defence in this climate of debate of climate as the 'little bit untrue' effort from the FoE rep on Newsnight. Jeremy Paxman took him apart.
I expect and demand more from advocates keen to make the case for more than self-glorification. Slow and steady wins the day, but perhaps not so many prizes.
And as to the competence of a government who decided to use a polemic, and a dated one, in such a charged atmosphere, well, the results are clear.
Post a Comment