I welcome and celebrate information when it moves along understanding, so long as that is what it does.
Posted as received, E&EO with no comment on any agenda:
(DEFRA - if you want the guff from the talking heads in full) New vision of climate change through Google Earth
Millions of Google Earth users around the world will be able to see how climate change could [my favourite word - ed] affect the planet and its people over the next century, along with viewing the loss of Antarctic ice shelves over the last 50 years, thanks to a new project launched today.
The project, Climate Change in Our World, is the product of a collaboration between Google, the UK Government, the Met Office Hadley Centre and the British Antarctic Survey to provide two new 'layers', or animations, available to all users of Google Earth.
One animation uses world leading climate science from the UK's Met Office Hadley Centre to show world temperatures throughout the next hundred years under medium projections of greenhouse gas emissions, along with stories of how people in the UK and in some of the world's poorest countries are already being affected by changing weather patterns.
Users can also access information on action that can be taken by individuals, communities, businesses and governments to tackle climate change, and highlights good work already underway.
Another animation, developed by the British Antarctic Survey, show the retreat of Antarctic ice caps since the 1950s, and features facts about climate change science and impacts in the Antarctic.
The project is currently a snapshot of some of the recent scientific information about climate change and its impacts. The partners in the project will be looking to develop these ideas further in the future, preferably with additional partners.
Feedback on the content of the project, or any ideas for future animations or impact stories can be emailed to OURWORLD@defra.gsi.gov.uk
Monday, May 19, 2008
What 'e sed
MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL, WHO’S THE GREENEST OF THEM ALL?
Amen, and well said (inc..... especially the bit about the bags. Just got my latest, much fairer P&P, sets from the Dailys Mail and Telegraph - from when they were having a quick green movement/week/day. I was going to say you can never have enough... but my collection is now getting to surplus (which begs other overall 'eco' questions).
I was going to blog on this, but you really have covered most, so I'll piggy back.
I was at first keen on entering this contest, but having read what it was all about, plus the fee, soon lost interest: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/12/awards-sunday-times-best-green.html
These 'eco/green' specials, especially those with an award or ranking, are really getting quite out of control.
It's almost as if the media dept. is calling up editorial and saying 'hey, here's a way to make money. And oh, by the way, we can call it 'green', for extra kudos on us too!'
I have not read the articles in this latest issue (frankly one look and it became a duty rather than a joy to even spare it for subsequent professional review as opposed to personal interest), but I truly hope the editorial standards have not been shaped by who the sponsors are, as much as they have been in the past: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/12/he-who-pays-piper.html
On a purely subjective, creative note, I was also struck by how unutterably dull it all was. What was there to excite... motivate? I know it was a business insert, but the general public do read the ST too. This extra wadge of newsprint must have ended up straight to bi... er..recycling. Oh, the irony.
The shame of it is that it was... is a nice idea (once the rather disingenuous distinctions of the measures of merit used are resolved), and could have been great. Also that there are, doubtless, a few genuine folk in there who scraped together the necessary to compete and deserve a big up. But sadly, they are not finding themselves always in the 'best' company or, forgive me... 'environment'.
I have to say that I am starting to look at many 'green' awards, and many 'conferences/summits', as more methods to create income (often from those who can ill-afford the budgets) and/or drive spurious PR for those able to afford to enter or lobby the organisers and/or 'expert' judges they hire, which serves the worthy guys out there poorly indeed.
Amen, and well said (inc..... especially the bit about the bags. Just got my latest, much fairer P&P, sets from the Dailys Mail and Telegraph - from when they were having a quick green movement/week/day. I was going to say you can never have enough... but my collection is now getting to surplus (which begs other overall 'eco' questions).
I was going to blog on this, but you really have covered most, so I'll piggy back.
I was at first keen on entering this contest, but having read what it was all about, plus the fee, soon lost interest: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/12/awards-sunday-times-best-green.html
These 'eco/green' specials, especially those with an award or ranking, are really getting quite out of control.
It's almost as if the media dept. is calling up editorial and saying 'hey, here's a way to make money. And oh, by the way, we can call it 'green', for extra kudos on us too!'
I have not read the articles in this latest issue (frankly one look and it became a duty rather than a joy to even spare it for subsequent professional review as opposed to personal interest), but I truly hope the editorial standards have not been shaped by who the sponsors are, as much as they have been in the past: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/12/he-who-pays-piper.html
On a purely subjective, creative note, I was also struck by how unutterably dull it all was. What was there to excite... motivate? I know it was a business insert, but the general public do read the ST too. This extra wadge of newsprint must have ended up straight to bi... er..recycling. Oh, the irony.
The shame of it is that it was... is a nice idea (once the rather disingenuous distinctions of the measures of merit used are resolved), and could have been great. Also that there are, doubtless, a few genuine folk in there who scraped together the necessary to compete and deserve a big up. But sadly, they are not finding themselves always in the 'best' company or, forgive me... 'environment'.
I have to say that I am starting to look at many 'green' awards, and many 'conferences/summits', as more methods to create income (often from those who can ill-afford the budgets) and/or drive spurious PR for those able to afford to enter or lobby the organisers and/or 'expert' judges they hire, which serves the worthy guys out there poorly indeed.
Uh-oh
Let me get this clear. I think the climate is behaving funny, and 'we' might not be helping.
So I advocate sensible precautions. And that includes funding research to make sure we're doing the right things in the right way, with the right amount of money, in the right timeframe.
That does not mean half the world being paid be the other half to come up with eco stuff.
Sadly, it seems that way. Which makes this a bit of a worry: 'Fewer hurricanes' as world warms
Last I heard , AGW/PMWNCC post-Katrina-wise, we were going to see more hurricanes (though this does suggest 'worse', with luck based on severity rather than death tolls, as the latter is spurious in a growing population scenario, especially coastally)). I know this might be tied into the 10+ year cooling, but it doesn't really help considering the previous narratives.
I await, with dread, how this will get reported/blogged.
Few editors lead with 'it's not that simple'
Reuters - Atlantic cyclones may decrease as globe warms: study
So I advocate sensible precautions. And that includes funding research to make sure we're doing the right things in the right way, with the right amount of money, in the right timeframe.
That does not mean half the world being paid be the other half to come up with eco stuff.
Sadly, it seems that way. Which makes this a bit of a worry: 'Fewer hurricanes' as world warms
Last I heard , AGW/PMWNCC post-Katrina-wise, we were going to see more hurricanes (though this does suggest 'worse', with luck based on severity rather than death tolls, as the latter is spurious in a growing population scenario, especially coastally)). I know this might be tied into the 10+ year cooling, but it doesn't really help considering the previous narratives.
I await, with dread, how this will get reported/blogged.
Few editors lead with 'it's not that simple'
Reuters - Atlantic cyclones may decrease as globe warms: study
Flower Power
Just watched the BBC coverage of the Chelsea Flower Show, which is, apparently, taking note of climate change.
The eco theme this year (subsequent ones will be interesting as fashion is all about not being 'so last year') is laudable, but having watched aluminium rolls (so that's what my recycling old cans goes to make), plastic sheet wrapping plants that get rejected as not being perfect, and having just heard the reference to using hairdryers (to make plants blossom more quickly), I am having trouble getting my head around the notion. I bet the skips when it closes are also a treat.
This currently seems about as eco as our disastrous attendance at the Ideal Home Show a few years ago, when about 1% of the stands were actually anything to do with tangibly making a difference to the planet.
Everything has an eco-cost of course, and weighing the investment (with 'awareness' the vague cloud, that can be dark or light, hanging over all such efforts) is a horrible task, but much of what I saw looked more to do with winning by looking green rather than saving by being it.
Indy - Green fingers - I guess you had to be there
Indy - Environmental damage of Flower show -
The eco theme this year (subsequent ones will be interesting as fashion is all about not being 'so last year') is laudable, but having watched aluminium rolls (so that's what my recycling old cans goes to make), plastic sheet wrapping plants that get rejected as not being perfect, and having just heard the reference to using hairdryers (to make plants blossom more quickly), I am having trouble getting my head around the notion. I bet the skips when it closes are also a treat.
This currently seems about as eco as our disastrous attendance at the Ideal Home Show a few years ago, when about 1% of the stands were actually anything to do with tangibly making a difference to the planet.
Everything has an eco-cost of course, and weighing the investment (with 'awareness' the vague cloud, that can be dark or light, hanging over all such efforts) is a horrible task, but much of what I saw looked more to do with winning by looking green rather than saving by being it.
Indy - Green fingers - I guess you had to be there
Indy - Environmental damage of Flower show -
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)