Thursday, March 10, 2011


Trying to discipline myself to blog more.

This seems as good a hop back on the horse as any.

It's not the first, and won't be the last, of a bunch of reactions to a less than stellar interviewee from the EU high command rather showing up some key gaps in her knowledge, and one presumes the overall scheme of things she represents.

Readers of this blog will know I have rather studiously steered clear of matters (A)GW. Too many unknowns; too much contention. Vast amounts of heat and little light.

I tend to restrict myself to areas I have more confidence with, such as reducing waste or improving efficiencies.

However, with some science and engineering in the educational background, and communications experience throughout my ad career, I still crank an eyebrow when things don't add up, and especially when such poor arithmetic is either poorly sold or, worse, wilfully misrepresented.

Hence I was transfixed by this exchange. It can be heard verbatim via the link above (though actually the whole segment is worth a listen), and even transcribed here.

Often all you need is the words, unadorned, and especially not 'interpreted' as too often happens with some 'reporting' media, to get a pretty good idea of what calibre of thinking can be deployed in the name of our kids' futures.

I was moved to comment recently on an uncritical puff piece about the future of electric hybrid cars, citing a Rolls Royce variant.

Perhaps the future does lie in such technologies, but with luck also gets its head around more immediate aspects of physics such as the energy required to propel a 4 person car that weighs twice as much as necessary.

Those in charge really seem to have no clue on the basics.

No comments: