More questions than answers

I was interested in this piece in the Indy: 'To greens, I was worse than a child abuser'

Now it has to be stated upfront that Mr. Durkin, and his doco, were pretty darn fat and loose with some truths, and certainly acted in the best interests of ratings over accuracy and fairness.

However, I am intrigued by a few fair issues/questions raised in this piece, which, whilst erring on 'two wrongs' I was not aware of until now.

'Harrabin had to go on to Newsnight and put some of these obvious points to Gore in person. Big Al squirmed and evaded and, according to Harrabin, later accused him of being a "traitor"'.

'Harrabin wrote a piece admitting he had thought the film was a bit off when he first saw it. Did he indeed? So why didn't he tell the rest of us? What do we pay him for? And how about all those "scientists" who, to their eternal shame, lined up to heap praise on the film?'

As many are asked of our national broadcaster, and the response systems of that august body are 'selective' at best, and none exists on this piece, I guess I may never know.

Plus ca change.

But, it's art!

I remember cranking an eyebrow at this when it first went up.

Not so much for the materials, but the energy required to lift water up and drop it down.

Now it seems there may be another reason to think one's eco-ware artform through a tad better before making one's point (plus laods of PR & wonga):

NYC Waterfall Installations Might be Killing Trees

Hmmn.

I remember when these first went up wondering what was the energy source used to elevate large volumes of water artificially up to drop down.

I asked a similar question of an 'eco-wareness' installation in some Nordic capital that involved lighting all the buildings up in colours to reflect 'moods' as I recall.

Apparently, as it was night, demand was low. So that's OK then.

There's a certain irony that falling water is often used to generate energy.