Or... not. ISBA issues guidelines to aid green ad claims
Another for the ToRoRAVA (talk or research or report always vs. action) Files.
Actually, I think Chris' 5 points about covers things, but I'm sure 'a wide-ranging set of guidelines on environmental claims written by a working group' will go on to clarify the issue greatly.
However, in light of how those from other bodies such as the ASA get treated, one wonders what, exactly, the difference will be.
Sadly it is only money that matters. Even more sadly, it seems the rewards go to those who make it short term (and move on quickly on the perceived kudos), irrespective to the eventual costs, to brand, profits... or planet.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
You've got to right/left hand it to them
I no longer participate on the BBC is Biased site.
It was because I felt I had been moderated off unfairly, and indeed with slight sense of agenda, for an attempt to point out that an extreme view on one 'side' of climate change is usually inevitably 'balanced' to resultant deadlock by an equally view on another.
But its contributors can still throw up some interesting stuff, if erring on the 'optimistic' side of things.
I thought this was of note, more to highlight how we are in the hands of journalists and, possibly, editorial policy who can often serve the facts poorly and hence create doubt on their abilities and offerings.
Remember this
"The change could have catastrophic consequences for marine life.
Oceans mop up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, lowering the water's pH value - an effect that may be exacerbated by burning of fossil fuels."
Phew, what a relief that the catastrophic consequences have been averted by this morning's news.
I for one would like to thank Mr Harrabin [at least it says 'BBC environment analyst [a what? As noted before, he is not exactly qualified in this field, yet his opinion is given such weight by this title?] Roger Harrabin said: "The researchers don't know if the change is due to climate change or to natural variations] for putting my mind at ease with his agenda free reporting of this issue.
Now years have passed and things change, but I really would like the BBC, with all its staff and resources, to get its act together so we don't just get served sensationalist stuff all the time, punted out without consideration by questionably qualified folk, usually from some press release.
It's simply too important not to get right, and especially not to give any how would use such woeful instances to advocate a 'do nothing' approach.
Actually, by my reading the BBBC implied 'critique' may not be fair, because it looks to me that the first is pointing out the consequent acidification due to increased CO2 absorption, and the second the possibility that the oceans have reached a limit of doing that any more. They are slightly different, if related, things. And neither are good, or a pass to keep on pumping the stuff out. Which I would point out on site (at risk of a real oceanographic chemical scientist - if such a title exists - slapping me down, but I'd like to get such things clear), but they don't seem keen on such questions. Shame. On them. On the BBC for being just untrustworthy these days and certainly creating an impression of agenda. And for the future of the planet our kids are being handed by 'us'.
If anyone more qualified could confirm or deny my initial thoughts I'd be grateful. On the one hand I envy folk so sure of themselves in this manner, but on the other I am appalled that simply be saying something 'is' in such a way gets though so often without challenge.
ADDENDUM - A bit more via a BBBC poster:
Article is based on an article in the Journal of Geophysical Research
It was because I felt I had been moderated off unfairly, and indeed with slight sense of agenda, for an attempt to point out that an extreme view on one 'side' of climate change is usually inevitably 'balanced' to resultant deadlock by an equally view on another.
But its contributors can still throw up some interesting stuff, if erring on the 'optimistic' side of things.
I thought this was of note, more to highlight how we are in the hands of journalists and, possibly, editorial policy who can often serve the facts poorly and hence create doubt on their abilities and offerings.
Remember this
"The change could have catastrophic consequences for marine life.
Oceans mop up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, lowering the water's pH value - an effect that may be exacerbated by burning of fossil fuels."
Phew, what a relief that the catastrophic consequences have been averted by this morning's news.
I for one would like to thank Mr Harrabin [at least it says 'BBC environment analyst [a what? As noted before, he is not exactly qualified in this field, yet his opinion is given such weight by this title?] Roger Harrabin said: "The researchers don't know if the change is due to climate change or to natural variations] for putting my mind at ease with his agenda free reporting of this issue.
Now years have passed and things change, but I really would like the BBC, with all its staff and resources, to get its act together so we don't just get served sensationalist stuff all the time, punted out without consideration by questionably qualified folk, usually from some press release.
It's simply too important not to get right, and especially not to give any how would use such woeful instances to advocate a 'do nothing' approach.
Actually, by my reading the BBBC implied 'critique' may not be fair, because it looks to me that the first is pointing out the consequent acidification due to increased CO2 absorption, and the second the possibility that the oceans have reached a limit of doing that any more. They are slightly different, if related, things. And neither are good, or a pass to keep on pumping the stuff out. Which I would point out on site (at risk of a real oceanographic chemical scientist - if such a title exists - slapping me down, but I'd like to get such things clear), but they don't seem keen on such questions. Shame. On them. On the BBC for being just untrustworthy these days and certainly creating an impression of agenda. And for the future of the planet our kids are being handed by 'us'.
If anyone more qualified could confirm or deny my initial thoughts I'd be grateful. On the one hand I envy folk so sure of themselves in this manner, but on the other I am appalled that simply be saying something 'is' in such a way gets though so often without challenge.
ADDENDUM - A bit more via a BBBC poster:
Article is based on an article in the Journal of Geophysical Research
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)