That seems appropriate.
As the two 'sides' I am referring to seem to be mostly at each one, either proving or disproving glacier melts or ice thicknesses as the rest of us sit in the middle and either freeze, fry or drown as they dick about arguing.
Speaking of which, something has just sunk in, which I will pose as a question (as I don't know...yet).
It cannot have escaped the notice of anyone interested (and selected groups possibly not, demanding on their choice of media) that there have been two major climate conferences recently: one in Copenhagen (the bigger, and more reported.. in places), and one in New York (the less big, and hence (?) much less well reported). I think it is safe to say each were essentially pushing diverse views within the climate change debate, if billed in the name of 'discussing' problems and solutions.
Thing is, what the heck was going on if the most vocal and, one presumes qualified 'experts' in the field doing in two separate places, essentially agreeing with those who agree with them? Was this through choice, lack of invitation, rejection, selection... what?
Doesn't all this really rather defeat the object of scientific debate? Not to mention the cause of a better future for our kids.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Coulda, shoulda, woulda...
There are many, complex matters of climatic concern worth taking seriously...
Time to change 'climate change'
My point has, is and will be that such as this is not, IMHO, exactly helping that to happen.
I think I gave up after the nth 'could' or 'might'. Whilst at least honest qualifiers, they were usually qualifying an extreme end.
A point rather picked up upon. And it wasn't until almost the end of the first page (not really worth wading through t'other 6...so far) that the first 'supportive' comment was made, rather ironically ignoring the author and referring to the 'deniers' being out in force. Hardly the most original, or cogent rebuttal that could be made.
I await with interest, and a bit of a sigh, 'climate breakdowners' being deemed the next pejorative stick to bash others with in the ongoing war of words. FWIW, as a communications professional, I'd say it's a move away from the evident main aim. In all this the anthropomorphic aspect seems to have been dropped, which is pretty key, plus of course the possible contribution of nature to man's pollutants as well. Maybe 'nature firsters'?
A bit like when I see Dear Leader 'representing' the UK, much as I believe in my cause, with such as this I sometimes have this guilty desire to be on another side. At least the arguments are often articulated a lot better, and with more humour.
Time to change 'climate change'
My point has, is and will be that such as this is not, IMHO, exactly helping that to happen.
I think I gave up after the nth 'could' or 'might'. Whilst at least honest qualifiers, they were usually qualifying an extreme end.
A point rather picked up upon. And it wasn't until almost the end of the first page (not really worth wading through t'other 6...so far) that the first 'supportive' comment was made, rather ironically ignoring the author and referring to the 'deniers' being out in force. Hardly the most original, or cogent rebuttal that could be made.
I await with interest, and a bit of a sigh, 'climate breakdowners' being deemed the next pejorative stick to bash others with in the ongoing war of words. FWIW, as a communications professional, I'd say it's a move away from the evident main aim. In all this the anthropomorphic aspect seems to have been dropped, which is pretty key, plus of course the possible contribution of nature to man's pollutants as well. Maybe 'nature firsters'?
A bit like when I see Dear Leader 'representing' the UK, much as I believe in my cause, with such as this I sometimes have this guilty desire to be on another side. At least the arguments are often articulated a lot better, and with more humour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)