I have been banging on since this blog started about the perils of overselling the negatives of 'global warming' in case the realities turn out not to match the predictions.
In advertising we have a saying (at least between the agency and the client... not so sure about the message to the consumer): 'Promise lower.. and deliver higher'. It's a lot nicer basking in an expectation exceeded than trying to explain one disappointed.
This... is a lot more serious than that, but the principle remains. You can ride a wave of positives, but a negative is seldom just one step back. Just as a recommendation gets 3 good pass-ons, a bad critique can be four times as pervasive, and trust is very hard to build up if it is deemed to be compromised.
Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict - (Who the heck uses 'Global Warming' any more... oh, I get it. But what's this... 'may'? Well that's there because, as with all else, no one actually knows for sure).
So I sought this out having seen it on BBC Breakfast, with the bouffant and blonde 'explaining' well, spinning like tops, that it's well, very complicated and we need to think long term, you see... etc.
All bang on. Thing is, that is not what has been trotted out faithfully in most populist media up until this point. And I rather suspect that those less convinced on the trend may be getting an earful from those actively hostile to the notion. And, frankly, it's going to be tough for those of a more 'climate pessimistic' bent to weather in attempting to mitigate. As I have long predicted.
After all that has been thrown at us over the last few years, in the simplistic, populist way it has, regurgitated by often unchallenging, compliant media, I have to say to 'expect a "lull" for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions' is not the best sell I have ever seen. Especially to get folk on board with a fairly fundamental leap of faith in the shift from global warming to climate change to.... 'things go up and down', and often in short periods geographically that seem an age in human terms (especially with News 24 and ratings to meet)'. So while the sky has not yet fallen as it should have done... it still will, honest.'
I await, with dread, how this is played out, especially by all those who consider that they 'know better'.
It's a little. I just hope it's not too late.
Telegraph - Campaign to sue Al Gore 'gains support'- Hmnn. What was that song? 'Swings like a pendulum do'? This is already silly, and getting sillier. All I am seeing is the extremes grabbing the headlines... and profiting from the chaos. I am on record as saying I have my doubts as to AG as messenger, and many of his messages are in the camp I refer to above, but he's entitled to his opinion and in fact is to be credited for bringing many things to world attention, and at an early stage. But suing....? What's all that about?
Addendum: (and so it starts. I search for, and welcome, counter-balancing views... so long as they are rational, science-based, and don't get us in a 'tis/t'isn't loop. It will be interesting to see what arrives from Real Climate... if it does)
EU Referendum (call 'em Climate Optimists) - "…several decades of global cooling" - I thought it was a one decade correction period, so already the issues are muddying.
BBC - Next decade 'may see no warming'
BBBC - Richard Black: "The projection does not come as a surprise to climate scientists, though it may to a public that has perhaps become used to the idea that the rapid temperature rises seen through the 1990s are a permanent phenomenon."
To quote the response: Where does "a public" get such crazy notions? From the BBC perhaps? Quite. Maybe I should get into the prediction business.
1984, Pt1 ch4. - A share from a blog which I pass on, as it resonates: "Today's issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston's job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones."
The thing is, the discussion has passed from where it should to very odd places by this diversion. And, I guess, this blog is part of it all. But I feel my audience is up to weighing all the issues and perhaps seeing that there is still something well worth considering, and allowing for. But I do believe the time may be upon me to go back more to where I have always been, which is a lot more DOING that really can have no effect but to help with mitigation (if in a small way), and leave the grander debates to those who seem keen to slug it out over definitions of black and white... ironically in the name of all that could be green inbetween.
I still maintain, and always will, that trying to play fast a loose with complex concepts, and their conclusions (or lack of them) can, with a busy and time poor general audience in a spin-cycle media environment, end up with a less than optimal result. So erring on caution might be advised, no matter how urgent the perceived threat, or well-intentioned the desire to deal with it by leaping over the parapets.
Lest WMD becomes 'Warming Motivates Diddly', especially when you launch an attack on it calling for public support (and sacrifice), and once you get to a certain point find what was claimed doesn't exist. Only, in this case, 'yet' is a valid qualifier lost now in the furore.
The Register - NEW - Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? - Doesn't exactly answer the question, but stirs already muddy waters.
Showing posts with label ALGORE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ALGORE. Show all posts
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
'Dose crazee 'mericans!
Guess which one is for real?
Once More for Gore?
Gore to recruit 10m-strong green army
Come to think of it, which would a) give him more votes or (they are different) b) more power or (they are really different) c) more opportunity to swan around the world meeting nifty folk and being adored?
Answers on a dimpled chad...
Once More for Gore?
Gore to recruit 10m-strong green army
Come to think of it, which would a) give him more votes or (they are different) b) more power or (they are really different) c) more opportunity to swan around the world meeting nifty folk and being adored?
Answers on a dimpled chad...
Friday, January 25, 2008
Two for the price of one.
Or... here's somebodies we flew in earlier: Bono and Gore have an answer, not a solution
Eco(nomic) development vs. Eco(logical) preservation.
Hmmn. Tricky.
Sadly I have to agree that with a growing global population with some major concentrations about to make the leap from 3rd to 1st world (is there a second? I never seem to hear of that stage) status (with all the aspirations and consequences that will bring) I can't see the result being that great for the latter.
So, like many, I have a lot of questions, a load of answers... and precious few solutions (well, a couple that do try to involve motivating and doing, rather than depressing and berating) that at least that have a political ice cube's chance in the sheer hell of a Bali post-conference poolside cocktail. Or a refugee overnighting in a Davos storm drain.
Thing is, I rather suspect there are quite a lot of others in the same boa... er... cattle class... er... business... er... first... er... private plane seat, all with same lack of tangibles to provide. It does now provide a nice little earner for an ever-growing cabal.
But having too long been fed a domestic diet of 'not acceptable', 'needs looking at' and 'won't be easy' by those addicted to gobbling down and squandering funds into holes of various hues (most lately green ones on endless quango comms budgets to tell us to do stuff as consumers - or else - which the systems have not yet been prepared to accommodate to a decent enviROI+), I'm a tad tired with yet more pointless wittering from those totally isolated from any consequences of anything. And those camp followers chasing them about the globe with a vested interest in not rocking the gravy train, comortably along for the ride in the observation carriages
So I have to agree with such as Post 8, Mr. McGilloway, that whatever messages do get spouted, we need a new breed of messenger PDQ. Because if they have lost me, then what effect their 'situations' and how they get portrayed by the inevitable cynical mechanisms that exist (so you now need to work with this fact, which is why you don't hire Pete and Kate to front a health lifestyle campaign) in this modern age has on much lite-er greens can only be imagined.
One has to presume their sincerity and applaud their commitment (nice not to have to worry too much about paying the rent, mind, but hey), but it does seem that there are mental blocks in place in pondering if they are really getting things across to the masses in the best ways possible, and not just pandering incestuously more to their mates behind the VIP Green Room velvet ropes? Warm and fuzzy, to be sure, but not making my kids' futures look any rosier, I'm afraid.
So yes, these two talking about, much less commenting upon cutting back on lifestyle excesses does indeed seem a stretch to empathise, and engage with if you are more Fiesta Family than 'One of my other car's is a Prius' Person.
And they are more than pandered to by an equally illogical, nannying media, who seem to be operating on set agenda and box-ticking mode in trotting out anything 'green' without thought, and yet to see no irony in flying en masse to the snowy wastes to see if they can find a melting glacier, or Tuvalu to dip a toe in the azure rising waters and solemnly intone to camera...' and it's you lot flying EasyJet who are to blame.'
Acts. Together. Get.
Houses. In. Order. First.
And if not 'practical' as in Tony 'Well, y'know, it's not really practical for the likes of me not to... as I have a stonking mortgage to feed [like the rest of us don't]' Blair, then step out of the frame and leave it to leaders who can lead by examples worth following.
Until then, I reckon this lot are just knocking back even further the chances of any coherent, rational, public changes in opinion and/or consequent behaviour.
This addiction to 'awareness' without also thoroughly assessing overall consequences is looking increasingly more short-sighted and self-serving the more we get fed it.
ADDENDUM - I don't know if it is a Mac thing (it's better but not 100% on a PC), but the BBC site is woeful in getting replies through these days. Either an error message or rejection. And then, just for good measure, it either has missed or hasn't so you end up duplicating!
Eco(nomic) development vs. Eco(logical) preservation.
Hmmn. Tricky.
Sadly I have to agree that with a growing global population with some major concentrations about to make the leap from 3rd to 1st world (is there a second? I never seem to hear of that stage) status (with all the aspirations and consequences that will bring) I can't see the result being that great for the latter.
So, like many, I have a lot of questions, a load of answers... and precious few solutions (well, a couple that do try to involve motivating and doing, rather than depressing and berating) that at least that have a political ice cube's chance in the sheer hell of a Bali post-conference poolside cocktail. Or a refugee overnighting in a Davos storm drain.
Thing is, I rather suspect there are quite a lot of others in the same boa... er... cattle class... er... business... er... first... er... private plane seat, all with same lack of tangibles to provide. It does now provide a nice little earner for an ever-growing cabal.
But having too long been fed a domestic diet of 'not acceptable', 'needs looking at' and 'won't be easy' by those addicted to gobbling down and squandering funds into holes of various hues (most lately green ones on endless quango comms budgets to tell us to do stuff as consumers - or else - which the systems have not yet been prepared to accommodate to a decent enviROI+), I'm a tad tired with yet more pointless wittering from those totally isolated from any consequences of anything. And those camp followers chasing them about the globe with a vested interest in not rocking the gravy train, comortably along for the ride in the observation carriages
So I have to agree with such as Post 8, Mr. McGilloway, that whatever messages do get spouted, we need a new breed of messenger PDQ. Because if they have lost me, then what effect their 'situations' and how they get portrayed by the inevitable cynical mechanisms that exist (so you now need to work with this fact, which is why you don't hire Pete and Kate to front a health lifestyle campaign) in this modern age has on much lite-er greens can only be imagined.
One has to presume their sincerity and applaud their commitment (nice not to have to worry too much about paying the rent, mind, but hey), but it does seem that there are mental blocks in place in pondering if they are really getting things across to the masses in the best ways possible, and not just pandering incestuously more to their mates behind the VIP Green Room velvet ropes? Warm and fuzzy, to be sure, but not making my kids' futures look any rosier, I'm afraid.
So yes, these two talking about, much less commenting upon cutting back on lifestyle excesses does indeed seem a stretch to empathise, and engage with if you are more Fiesta Family than 'One of my other car's is a Prius' Person.
And they are more than pandered to by an equally illogical, nannying media, who seem to be operating on set agenda and box-ticking mode in trotting out anything 'green' without thought, and yet to see no irony in flying en masse to the snowy wastes to see if they can find a melting glacier, or Tuvalu to dip a toe in the azure rising waters and solemnly intone to camera...' and it's you lot flying EasyJet who are to blame.'
Acts. Together. Get.
Houses. In. Order. First.
And if not 'practical' as in Tony 'Well, y'know, it's not really practical for the likes of me not to... as I have a stonking mortgage to feed [like the rest of us don't]' Blair, then step out of the frame and leave it to leaders who can lead by examples worth following.
Until then, I reckon this lot are just knocking back even further the chances of any coherent, rational, public changes in opinion and/or consequent behaviour.
This addiction to 'awareness' without also thoroughly assessing overall consequences is looking increasingly more short-sighted and self-serving the more we get fed it.
ADDENDUM - I don't know if it is a Mac thing (it's better but not 100% on a PC), but the BBC site is woeful in getting replies through these days. Either an error message or rejection. And then, just for good measure, it either has missed or hasn't so you end up duplicating!
Friday, October 12, 2007
Nobel Cause
Gore unlikely peace hero
'...the motivation behind the committee handing the award to Gore and the IPCC, is less about future gazing and more about wanting to make a clear and unequivocal statement ahead of the UN climate change conference in Bali this December'
Studiously trying to avoid any actual comment in any way (the MMGW optimist/pessimist keyboards are being sharpened as a write, I'm sure), I get a bit concerned reading such analysis of such 'awards' if/when it may be seen that they are being used more to send messages and/or plug future events.
That can result in consequences that often cause more problems down the line than they solve.
Guardian - Gore and peace - Unless the the BOFDis are better organised than I give them credit for, bearing in mind this is The Guardian the blog posts tell a tale
Guardian - The truth will out - Trouble with a headline like that is when what comes out isn't true. And while a person's background does not always have any bearing on what they have to say or how they say it, I seem to recall this chap calling the cancellation on Planet Relief 'a right-wing conspiracy when the truth was the BBC sensed no one fancied another Live Earth.
'That's not a game I want to play with my kids. Do you?'
No.
But then again, I'd prefer messengers whose message doesn't immediately leave itself open to the absolutist 'tis/tisn't, all-or-nothing MMCC exchanges that inevitably ensue. See above.
There are a lot of folk DOING a lot more that may not be as sexy as celeb-fuelled 'awareness' talkfests, but might achieve more. And with luck are not over-egging the case to the point a lot of good gets compromised by trivia or, worse, inaccuracies. Or sulking and making wild accusations when the majority of the public show resistance to fondly cherished notions, such as Planet Relief.
And messengers are as important, if not more so, as message these days. Choose them with care.
The headlines reporting this are really as polarised as any discussing the causes of climate change. There's also the small matter of how thew facts of the award get reported. As with teh Oscar, it often seems Mr. Gore alone won it. This from Science Daily is perhaps a more appropriate summary:
Climate Change Research Recognized - In 2007 Nobel Peace Prize - The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.
As to whether using Mr. Gore's efforts... and views... were the best way to 'send a message', especially via a Peace prize, and it seems targeted rather unsubtly at the US, remains to be seen.
LA Times - Gore's Nobel win stirs hope — and speculation - It seems odd to see this being projected to a potential presidential effort. Especially like this.
BBC - Indian's surprise at Nobel award - Interesting back story
BBC - Gore says prize must spur action
'...the motivation behind the committee handing the award to Gore and the IPCC, is less about future gazing and more about wanting to make a clear and unequivocal statement ahead of the UN climate change conference in Bali this December'
Studiously trying to avoid any actual comment in any way (the MMGW optimist/pessimist keyboards are being sharpened as a write, I'm sure), I get a bit concerned reading such analysis of such 'awards' if/when it may be seen that they are being used more to send messages and/or plug future events.
That can result in consequences that often cause more problems down the line than they solve.
Guardian - Gore and peace - Unless the the BOFDis are better organised than I give them credit for, bearing in mind this is The Guardian the blog posts tell a tale
Guardian - The truth will out - Trouble with a headline like that is when what comes out isn't true. And while a person's background does not always have any bearing on what they have to say or how they say it, I seem to recall this chap calling the cancellation on Planet Relief 'a right-wing conspiracy when the truth was the BBC sensed no one fancied another Live Earth.
'That's not a game I want to play with my kids. Do you?'
No.
But then again, I'd prefer messengers whose message doesn't immediately leave itself open to the absolutist 'tis/tisn't, all-or-nothing MMCC exchanges that inevitably ensue. See above.
There are a lot of folk DOING a lot more that may not be as sexy as celeb-fuelled 'awareness' talkfests, but might achieve more. And with luck are not over-egging the case to the point a lot of good gets compromised by trivia or, worse, inaccuracies. Or sulking and making wild accusations when the majority of the public show resistance to fondly cherished notions, such as Planet Relief.
And messengers are as important, if not more so, as message these days. Choose them with care.
The headlines reporting this are really as polarised as any discussing the causes of climate change. There's also the small matter of how thew facts of the award get reported. As with teh Oscar, it often seems Mr. Gore alone won it. This from Science Daily is perhaps a more appropriate summary:
Climate Change Research Recognized - In 2007 Nobel Peace Prize - The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.
As to whether using Mr. Gore's efforts... and views... were the best way to 'send a message', especially via a Peace prize, and it seems targeted rather unsubtly at the US, remains to be seen.
LA Times - Gore's Nobel win stirs hope — and speculation - It seems odd to see this being projected to a potential presidential effort. Especially like this.
BBC - Indian's surprise at Nobel award - Interesting back story
BBC - Gore says prize must spur action
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Laugh, I could have...
Fox's Glacier Mints 'carbon footprint'
Nice to see the funny side being aired. I'm sure Al Gore* would approve!
But the way things might be headed, Fox might just soon be able to walk up* there by pushing the sand all around into a ramp:)
*Peppy having drowned on his 60 mile swim.
Nice to see the funny side being aired. I'm sure Al Gore* would approve!
But the way things might be headed, Fox might just soon be able to walk up* there by pushing the sand all around into a ramp:)
*Peppy having drowned on his 60 mile swim.
Friday, September 28, 2007
How do you lean on balance?
Gosh, this is a tricky one: Legal battle on Gore climate film
On the one hand, if someone said they were/are going to show my boys a film that raises questions on most any topic, especially climate, I'd say 'go for it'. And then, probably forget all about it.
I'll still say it (though we have it in the DVD library downstairs... they were not keen on a night of Daddy's choice in films, sadly), but might now reserve the right to chat with them afterwards. Think of those spoof school videos from the Doug McClure character on the Simpsons. Mayeb with Groundkeeper Willie intoning 'Ye're alll doomed!'.
My first thought is that we've moved on a lot since then. The warnings are still apposite, but the detail is dated. Or, if this from the objector's counsel is to be believed, open to question on some key bases: "Given the serious inaccuracies in the film and the misrepresentations it contains, the film is irredeemable". I'd certainly like to see this pack.
BBC review - 'Most glaring was the pitifully small screentime he gave to solutions'. I know a sequel to correct that (with, fingers crossed, enviROI included) is en route. Maybe it would be better at least to wait?
I wonder what else my kids get shown that has been sent by those who think they should see what they deem 'necessary, and leave it up to a teacher to decide how it gets discussed for balance. The phrase 'can 'o worms' springs to mind.
Brand Republic - Al Gore's environmental campaign appoints global agency
On the one hand, if someone said they were/are going to show my boys a film that raises questions on most any topic, especially climate, I'd say 'go for it'. And then, probably forget all about it.
I'll still say it (though we have it in the DVD library downstairs... they were not keen on a night of Daddy's choice in films, sadly), but might now reserve the right to chat with them afterwards. Think of those spoof school videos from the Doug McClure character on the Simpsons. Mayeb with Groundkeeper Willie intoning 'Ye're alll doomed!'.
My first thought is that we've moved on a lot since then. The warnings are still apposite, but the detail is dated. Or, if this from the objector's counsel is to be believed, open to question on some key bases: "Given the serious inaccuracies in the film and the misrepresentations it contains, the film is irredeemable". I'd certainly like to see this pack.
BBC review - 'Most glaring was the pitifully small screentime he gave to solutions'. I know a sequel to correct that (with, fingers crossed, enviROI included) is en route. Maybe it would be better at least to wait?
I wonder what else my kids get shown that has been sent by those who think they should see what they deem 'necessary, and leave it up to a teacher to decide how it gets discussed for balance. The phrase 'can 'o worms' springs to mind.
Brand Republic - Al Gore's environmental campaign appoints global agency
Thursday, May 17, 2007
I can't stand....
Well, Monday's are taken as read, but as I am currently doing well skipping being pinned to an actual opinion by simply attributing to others, here is one from St. Bob that I 'noted' in light of some views I have held on this issue already: Live Earth? It's a waste of time, Geldof tells Gore
"To make us aware of the greenhouse effect? Everybody's known about that problem for years. We are all fucking conscious of global warming."
Couldn't have gosh-darn well said it better myself! As he points out, the organisers of Live Earth had no specific target... "So it's just an enormous pop concert or the umpteenth time that, say, Madonna or Coldplay get up on stage."
I am prepared to bet, however, that Indy journos will be gushing to get to the VIP Green rooms when it all hits town. Can't get enough awareness. Doing... well...
As a packager asked me yesterday at the show: 'Why is that they have this big campaign about packaging, yet I have never heard you guys mentioned as you are trying to mitigate its effects?" Quite.
"To make us aware of the greenhouse effect? Everybody's known about that problem for years. We are all fucking conscious of global warming."
Couldn't have gosh-darn well said it better myself! As he points out, the organisers of Live Earth had no specific target... "So it's just an enormous pop concert or the umpteenth time that, say, Madonna or Coldplay get up on stage."
I am prepared to bet, however, that Indy journos will be gushing to get to the VIP Green rooms when it all hits town. Can't get enough awareness. Doing... well...
As a packager asked me yesterday at the show: 'Why is that they have this big campaign about packaging, yet I have never heard you guys mentioned as you are trying to mitigate its effects?" Quite.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Al a kazam! Al a kaboom! Al a can't be bovvered...
Newsnight - Tuesday, 27th March, 2007
Interesting. Which is more than I can say about the Al Gore interview, which doubtless was a BBC 'exclusive'. What did he offer? 2 minutes between more important meetings?
Other than a few side mentions, almost 100% of responses to last night's programme are concerned with poverty, which may have a part to play in my area of interest (other than wondering if it is a mandatory to be Scottish to get into government and/or be a spokesperson these days - if so, sign me up. I am, at least half), which is the environment and how to just keep it ticking along, and with luck tickedy boo.
So it seems we may have to call in Al.
I have lately weathered a lot of blog storms (sorry and sorry for the puns) about the issues of climate change, post IPCC and Ch4/Durkin, and Mr. Gore's role in it all has popped up on occasion.
It has not been pretty. I'm afraid this piece didn't scrub up much better.
For a start, the programme was launched with Mr. Gore quoted as saying the US could learn a lesson from the UK Government.
Sadly it was not too clear what that was. Hopefully it is not saying to the population to do one thing whilst those doing the saying don't feel it really can or should apply to them.
Mr. Gore was mildly tasked on this aspect of leadership by example. At least on his electricity consumption, which he had a good chance to field, and did so fairly comprehensively; though saying something is a lie and not really saying where sets up some red flags. Personally I thought he would have been better advised to point out that as his is not exactly a two-up, two down family home and as he runs his office from it (with staff), there is likely a bit more than a microwave and TV left on standby in there.
Sadly we did not go on to find out why him flying (if indeed he does) by private jet is necessary thanks to a busy schedule that the rest of us apparently do not suffer from. I'm off next month to Geneva and simply can't wait to get in that aluminium tube and see what I can catch in the 90 minute flight from row 22b. But the price and time advantage vs. a train was simply too great to enjoy the slooooow travel now promoted by all our offsetting travel writers with places to eventually get to, and people to sponge off.
So we're winning the war on climate change? When EU ministers think their 4x4 is OK but yours is not, and then vote to let even more planes shuttle back and forth to the US, along with Air Force Gore, of course. Not.
I was also very surprised how unconvincing he was. He droned, dealt out dry facts and frankly didn't look as if he cared a damn what anyone thought.
Maybe the CH4 doco was reckless, but explaining how by just saying 'his' 'experts' are better than 'theirs' is a level of argument my 10 year olds would demolish. And I now have a lot of highly-educated and aware mates tackling me more challengingly on my advocacy, based on being swayed by this show. It's no good just saying they are naughty people and 'we' wear white hats, so we must be right. The small group of sceptics I am aware of seems pretty big to me, outside of the green elite and business leaders with their eyes on a) not being walloped with punitive measures and b) making a nifty profit. These folk only know what they know, and calling them deniers won't help much to change their minds.
The poverty story does make one wonder. Is it just possible a reason that most average people are not as engaged as one would imagine, or hope, is because we are being talked down to mostly by guys who have scored nice little earners but are often shown to be doing so from very dubious and shaky pedestals. I would accept that Mr. Gore is better placed morally than most, as he has form going back a long way. Genuine stuff. But unfortunately for him, and in my view his - and my - cause, he is not the best person to communicate effectively with the general public by dint of personality and personal circumstances. Not his fault, but a simple fact of media life.
The world's mid to low-income consumers really are the only ones that matter when it comes to making the necessary changes in personal choices to in turn help the planet.
Can this nation's 'leaders' (especially, lord help us, the self-anointed 'green elites'), and Mr. Gore for his own country, and all the trendy media who would support them, really put hands on hearts and say their efforts at reaching this majority, much less influence them, have been successful to date? I'd say not.
So we need some new brooms.
----
ps: Ribena has been fined for its lack of Vitamin C in the iconic drink. That'll teach 'em! I'm guessing about what they make in an hour, right?
pps: I am thinking of taking the Italians to court for war reparations for stuff I am sure happened to my great, great, etc granny, who I'm pretty sure was a Roman comfort woman. Now can we fill five minutes with some spokesperson and critics hauled off the BBC rentamouth crowd to chew on this, please? And anyone who says I can't is a racist, and I demand compo!
---
MASTER...CADS?
The percent you can claim back via tax credits (minus admin costs of an army of pen-pushers with only one personal voting option to stay employed by those who created them) to compensate for what you've had taken directly in tax - a long way shy of a 100, Jimmy!
Taking a private jet to go to an enviro awards ceremony or media opp - worth every tonne, especially if Bono can hitch his hat a ride.
Telling your customers that what's in your product isn't quite what they may actually find - £70k
Taking a bit of distant history and turning it into a divisive conflict tournament for a few days - loadsaratings!
The trust the people now have in government, activists, spokespersons, business... and the media that is meant to keep us informed objectively on their activities - er.... less.
A whole lot less.
ADDENDUM: I was rebutted -
Sarah,
Well one bit out of a few is not too bad! Better than none!
I don't think we are disagreeing too much at all on anything, even what the problems are. But I'm afraid I must offer the opinion that your reply rather makes my point.
I have worked my whole life in media communications. One lesson I learned early on was when we were pitching and my boss said to a client ''I'm afraid you are not understanding my point", to which the client replied: '"And I'm afraid you are not making it clearly enough for me to be persuaded by it. Oh, and I'm the one you want to pay for the consequences of your proposal'.
I would dispute the word wilful totally, but for the purposes of brevity I summarised my feelings, which stand. Without reference to the archive it's hard to get into detail, but that's how it came across ... to me. And another, sad fact of our sound-bite culture. Who has time for the full story... 'when that's all we have time for'.
Be assured, I am keen for most, if not all, of Mr. Gore's views to prevail. But I concern myself that the messenger, and not the message, is at the fore, and there may be some flaws to this that outweigh any earlier gains in 'awareness'.
It is a fundamental aspect of the fight to win hearts and minds, to effect what I see as necessary changes to lifestyles to redirect our futures in a better environmental direction.
I am not telling you you are wrong in your data. How can I? I don't know yet what is fact and what is not. I am simply sharing how I feel. Yet your response has been that I am wrong and it seems I must now change to your way. I'm sorry, but my first instinct is to push back even harder.
I have lived through but been too badly burned by too many flame wars between big-oil-funded deniers and rabid eco-fascists (the only 'camps' that seem to get featured, and hence dominate any public media outlet) to feel like getting into the global warming 'debate' any more, as both can only seemingly operate in the most didactic manner. For the few paras you lob in here I can point you at scores of blog pages that have run to hundreds of posts, pro and con. We seem no further ahead.
For professional reasons I try a lot more than most to understand the problem, to be objective in seeking and sharing the solutions. Many do not have the time or inclination to do so. And they are 'our' audience to convince. If it is all so obvious, how has this failed to happen yet? Are you saying that the masses can't understand, and so don't know what's good for them?
We're getting to points where people are being asked to cut back, and if they are being asked to do so by those who reserve the right not to, or who will suffer in relative terms much less, we are entering eco-farming territory Mr. Orwell would recognise.
Ask the average person in the street what they think of the global warming issue, and I'll be interested in who cites the IPCC report, and who mentions the GGWS, both of which are used by various media to bash on their agendas. And you surely can't be saying that the BBC is not sympathetic to the notions in support of man's influence? But equally it is rather telling that you seem to require that only what you agree with gets shared. Allow debate to take place, and counter in ways that people can understand... and respond to.
I simply feel that those who think they know better then the rest of us are in danger of being more worried about being proved right, than seeing anything right get done by the best folk for the job.
ADDENDUM #2;
All concerned have a passion that is to be applauded, and some... levels of conviction that are to be envied.
It could however be wished that such knowledge and desires to share are matched with an equal ability to convince, otherwise we are in danger of spinning in one place.
Sadly, it would appear that I suffer from a similar inability to get some to see my key point, which I must accept as a failing on my part. At least I hope I am not using the basis of my facts being the only facts that are valid, as can happen, and would rather deal in what seems to come across more by the evidence of my of my own eyes as I look out the window, and then witnessing what gets traded in blogs such as this.
The thing is, we are usually not debating from opposing sides, or even trying to effect a compromise between differing views.
So I end up agreeing with most of what people believe in and seek to share, if it's what's best for our kids' futures.
I simply question how effective such belief alone often is in effecting the necessary changes in the optimum timescales.
Applying highly simplistic tags to a very complex issue, the 'deniers' have a huge advantage.
They are basically saying 'There's nothing wrong. Or if there is it's not down to us. Or if it was/is there's little we can do now to change it. So just chill out as you warm up, keep on doing what comes naturally and partayyyyy!'
Those who take a different view, including myself, would beg to differ. Speaking personally, I don't really yet pretend to know with certainty whether what we are experiencing is as a result of a climatological natural phenomenon or not, but the visible influences are looking tangible, rather frequent and moving a lot faster than a geological timescale.
Hence I'm operating on the basis that whatever man is doing, we may not be helping. And hence it might be as well to check our headlong rush into potential oblivion.
Which brings us to scale. Do we 'cut back a bit'? Do we stop? Do we reverse? All involve compromise, which to a race with competitive cultures which have evolved into growing economies, is not going to be easy to manage.
So far, I don't think the problem has been sold very well, very consistently or at all convincingly. And with very few solutions that make sense or simply smack of bandwagon jumping. And while there are many sincere folk doing their best to share their messages, and doing so in an inspiring way and with best of practices and personal examples... too many are not.
As it stands, I regret that I think the 'my way or no way' style of persuasion stands a polar bear on a shrinking ice flow's chance of getting Joe Blow out of his aircon car, Fiesta family into a Prius, any Isligtonistas off their ski trip this Easter, or me to concede its OK to just talk loudly without being too concerned whether the message is being received, understood or being acted upon.
A bit like a Brit on holiday abroad. 'Silly foreigners don't see how obvious what I'm saying is'.
Good luck. Over and out.
Interesting. Which is more than I can say about the Al Gore interview, which doubtless was a BBC 'exclusive'. What did he offer? 2 minutes between more important meetings?
Other than a few side mentions, almost 100% of responses to last night's programme are concerned with poverty, which may have a part to play in my area of interest (other than wondering if it is a mandatory to be Scottish to get into government and/or be a spokesperson these days - if so, sign me up. I am, at least half), which is the environment and how to just keep it ticking along, and with luck tickedy boo.
So it seems we may have to call in Al.
I have lately weathered a lot of blog storms (sorry and sorry for the puns) about the issues of climate change, post IPCC and Ch4/Durkin, and Mr. Gore's role in it all has popped up on occasion.
It has not been pretty. I'm afraid this piece didn't scrub up much better.
For a start, the programme was launched with Mr. Gore quoted as saying the US could learn a lesson from the UK Government.
Sadly it was not too clear what that was. Hopefully it is not saying to the population to do one thing whilst those doing the saying don't feel it really can or should apply to them.
Mr. Gore was mildly tasked on this aspect of leadership by example. At least on his electricity consumption, which he had a good chance to field, and did so fairly comprehensively; though saying something is a lie and not really saying where sets up some red flags. Personally I thought he would have been better advised to point out that as his is not exactly a two-up, two down family home and as he runs his office from it (with staff), there is likely a bit more than a microwave and TV left on standby in there.
Sadly we did not go on to find out why him flying (if indeed he does) by private jet is necessary thanks to a busy schedule that the rest of us apparently do not suffer from. I'm off next month to Geneva and simply can't wait to get in that aluminium tube and see what I can catch in the 90 minute flight from row 22b. But the price and time advantage vs. a train was simply too great to enjoy the slooooow travel now promoted by all our offsetting travel writers with places to eventually get to, and people to sponge off.
So we're winning the war on climate change? When EU ministers think their 4x4 is OK but yours is not, and then vote to let even more planes shuttle back and forth to the US, along with Air Force Gore, of course. Not.
I was also very surprised how unconvincing he was. He droned, dealt out dry facts and frankly didn't look as if he cared a damn what anyone thought.
Maybe the CH4 doco was reckless, but explaining how by just saying 'his' 'experts' are better than 'theirs' is a level of argument my 10 year olds would demolish. And I now have a lot of highly-educated and aware mates tackling me more challengingly on my advocacy, based on being swayed by this show. It's no good just saying they are naughty people and 'we' wear white hats, so we must be right. The small group of sceptics I am aware of seems pretty big to me, outside of the green elite and business leaders with their eyes on a) not being walloped with punitive measures and b) making a nifty profit. These folk only know what they know, and calling them deniers won't help much to change their minds.
The poverty story does make one wonder. Is it just possible a reason that most average people are not as engaged as one would imagine, or hope, is because we are being talked down to mostly by guys who have scored nice little earners but are often shown to be doing so from very dubious and shaky pedestals. I would accept that Mr. Gore is better placed morally than most, as he has form going back a long way. Genuine stuff. But unfortunately for him, and in my view his - and my - cause, he is not the best person to communicate effectively with the general public by dint of personality and personal circumstances. Not his fault, but a simple fact of media life.
The world's mid to low-income consumers really are the only ones that matter when it comes to making the necessary changes in personal choices to in turn help the planet.
Can this nation's 'leaders' (especially, lord help us, the self-anointed 'green elites'), and Mr. Gore for his own country, and all the trendy media who would support them, really put hands on hearts and say their efforts at reaching this majority, much less influence them, have been successful to date? I'd say not.
So we need some new brooms.
----
ps: Ribena has been fined for its lack of Vitamin C in the iconic drink. That'll teach 'em! I'm guessing about what they make in an hour, right?
pps: I am thinking of taking the Italians to court for war reparations for stuff I am sure happened to my great, great, etc granny, who I'm pretty sure was a Roman comfort woman. Now can we fill five minutes with some spokesperson and critics hauled off the BBC rentamouth crowd to chew on this, please? And anyone who says I can't is a racist, and I demand compo!
---
MASTER...CADS?
The percent you can claim back via tax credits (minus admin costs of an army of pen-pushers with only one personal voting option to stay employed by those who created them) to compensate for what you've had taken directly in tax - a long way shy of a 100, Jimmy!
Taking a private jet to go to an enviro awards ceremony or media opp - worth every tonne, especially if Bono can hitch his hat a ride.
Telling your customers that what's in your product isn't quite what they may actually find - £70k
Taking a bit of distant history and turning it into a divisive conflict tournament for a few days - loadsaratings!
The trust the people now have in government, activists, spokespersons, business... and the media that is meant to keep us informed objectively on their activities - er.... less.
A whole lot less.
ADDENDUM: I was rebutted -
Sarah,
Well one bit out of a few is not too bad! Better than none!
I don't think we are disagreeing too much at all on anything, even what the problems are. But I'm afraid I must offer the opinion that your reply rather makes my point.
I have worked my whole life in media communications. One lesson I learned early on was when we were pitching and my boss said to a client ''I'm afraid you are not understanding my point", to which the client replied: '"And I'm afraid you are not making it clearly enough for me to be persuaded by it. Oh, and I'm the one you want to pay for the consequences of your proposal'.
I would dispute the word wilful totally, but for the purposes of brevity I summarised my feelings, which stand. Without reference to the archive it's hard to get into detail, but that's how it came across ... to me. And another, sad fact of our sound-bite culture. Who has time for the full story... 'when that's all we have time for'.
Be assured, I am keen for most, if not all, of Mr. Gore's views to prevail. But I concern myself that the messenger, and not the message, is at the fore, and there may be some flaws to this that outweigh any earlier gains in 'awareness'.
It is a fundamental aspect of the fight to win hearts and minds, to effect what I see as necessary changes to lifestyles to redirect our futures in a better environmental direction.
I am not telling you you are wrong in your data. How can I? I don't know yet what is fact and what is not. I am simply sharing how I feel. Yet your response has been that I am wrong and it seems I must now change to your way. I'm sorry, but my first instinct is to push back even harder.
I have lived through but been too badly burned by too many flame wars between big-oil-funded deniers and rabid eco-fascists (the only 'camps' that seem to get featured, and hence dominate any public media outlet) to feel like getting into the global warming 'debate' any more, as both can only seemingly operate in the most didactic manner. For the few paras you lob in here I can point you at scores of blog pages that have run to hundreds of posts, pro and con. We seem no further ahead.
For professional reasons I try a lot more than most to understand the problem, to be objective in seeking and sharing the solutions. Many do not have the time or inclination to do so. And they are 'our' audience to convince. If it is all so obvious, how has this failed to happen yet? Are you saying that the masses can't understand, and so don't know what's good for them?
We're getting to points where people are being asked to cut back, and if they are being asked to do so by those who reserve the right not to, or who will suffer in relative terms much less, we are entering eco-farming territory Mr. Orwell would recognise.
Ask the average person in the street what they think of the global warming issue, and I'll be interested in who cites the IPCC report, and who mentions the GGWS, both of which are used by various media to bash on their agendas. And you surely can't be saying that the BBC is not sympathetic to the notions in support of man's influence? But equally it is rather telling that you seem to require that only what you agree with gets shared. Allow debate to take place, and counter in ways that people can understand... and respond to.
I simply feel that those who think they know better then the rest of us are in danger of being more worried about being proved right, than seeing anything right get done by the best folk for the job.
ADDENDUM #2;
All concerned have a passion that is to be applauded, and some... levels of conviction that are to be envied.
It could however be wished that such knowledge and desires to share are matched with an equal ability to convince, otherwise we are in danger of spinning in one place.
Sadly, it would appear that I suffer from a similar inability to get some to see my key point, which I must accept as a failing on my part. At least I hope I am not using the basis of my facts being the only facts that are valid, as can happen, and would rather deal in what seems to come across more by the evidence of my of my own eyes as I look out the window, and then witnessing what gets traded in blogs such as this.
The thing is, we are usually not debating from opposing sides, or even trying to effect a compromise between differing views.
So I end up agreeing with most of what people believe in and seek to share, if it's what's best for our kids' futures.
I simply question how effective such belief alone often is in effecting the necessary changes in the optimum timescales.
Applying highly simplistic tags to a very complex issue, the 'deniers' have a huge advantage.
They are basically saying 'There's nothing wrong. Or if there is it's not down to us. Or if it was/is there's little we can do now to change it. So just chill out as you warm up, keep on doing what comes naturally and partayyyyy!'
Those who take a different view, including myself, would beg to differ. Speaking personally, I don't really yet pretend to know with certainty whether what we are experiencing is as a result of a climatological natural phenomenon or not, but the visible influences are looking tangible, rather frequent and moving a lot faster than a geological timescale.
Hence I'm operating on the basis that whatever man is doing, we may not be helping. And hence it might be as well to check our headlong rush into potential oblivion.
Which brings us to scale. Do we 'cut back a bit'? Do we stop? Do we reverse? All involve compromise, which to a race with competitive cultures which have evolved into growing economies, is not going to be easy to manage.
So far, I don't think the problem has been sold very well, very consistently or at all convincingly. And with very few solutions that make sense or simply smack of bandwagon jumping. And while there are many sincere folk doing their best to share their messages, and doing so in an inspiring way and with best of practices and personal examples... too many are not.
As it stands, I regret that I think the 'my way or no way' style of persuasion stands a polar bear on a shrinking ice flow's chance of getting Joe Blow out of his aircon car, Fiesta family into a Prius, any Isligtonistas off their ski trip this Easter, or me to concede its OK to just talk loudly without being too concerned whether the message is being received, understood or being acted upon.
A bit like a Brit on holiday abroad. 'Silly foreigners don't see how obvious what I'm saying is'.
Good luck. Over and out.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
It's always the good ones that seem to fail
I tried to post this to a topical thread, that has already been raised here recently.
I think it warrants its own:
Dear Sirs,
I rather suspect that the reason for my first para is explained by the fact that no one could comment. Error message on upload attempt:
No such entry '014124'.
The rest stands:
I find it rather odd, and sad, that, as I arrive back after a very happy family weekend break to engage in my traditional 'surf and mirth' scope, a little late in the day, of the 'quality' major news media blogosphere, that I seem to be the only person to have found this; or at least felt moved to add a comment... so far. Out of 60M them's poor odds.
Especially if we are facing something potentially none too optimal (if the tipping point to Armageddon can be so described) in around a decade, at least by my understanding of the IPPC report.
Thing is, I find myself in an odd position. I care very much about all this, if only for my kids' sake. I am, by any measure, environmentally concerned, and arguably quite active. I may even be, by dint of taking a greater interest than many, fairly well informed. And, most importantly, I care passionately about DOING something, anything, to avoid unnecessary waste, and to find practical, inspirational ways to assist the consuming public to live more environmentally sound lifestyles by choice, and not nannying, guilt, scare or fine.
So I tend to find talking shops at best frustrating, if not actually downright obstructive, by consuming resources, and energies, that could be used more positively.
Sadly, having read and reread this a few times, I am unable to see how anything has been moved ahead much, save to offer a lifeline to the deniers by denying them the very things that they would deny those with a more precautionary bent (that's a lot of denying in one sentence, sorry, but I call 'em as I see 'em). I don't know if such as Al Gore and those others less celebrity-endowed are dead right or completely wrong, but if they're wrong they'll just look silly in a few decades. If they are right, those who are big-oiling into denial will, along with the rest of us, be looking a little red-faced, and not just from embarrassment. Though I do take the point that most will be long dead and buried, and hence not really in a position to care that their book sales have nosedived.
However, I can only see more ammunition here to enable the artillery barrages from extremes on both sides to continue ever more energetically, leaving those who thirst for information, guidance and action still sitting dazed and confused beneath the literary pyrotechnics that rage.
I may be tired from a period spent well if not wisely, but I stumbled on this in regard to the forthcoming show that has yet to be screened, but already generated such a ferocious counter-movement - 'Certainly, there many reasons to deride it. Its contents are largely untrue, for a start. That is Channel 4's problem.' Now I haven't seen it, but this is quite a thing. 'Largely untrue contents' are pretty much the smoking gun to put down this nag before it even leaves the starting blocks.
But...
I can't for the life of me seem to locate what these untrue contents are, at least from the piece written. What I do get are trash jobs on those involved, and unless I am very much mistaken, and harking to only a few blogs back, this seemed to be a tactic not considered quite cricket when applied to those who are in favour of Al Gore, IPCC , Uncle Tom Cobbly and all in the man-made corner. So which is to be. In gutter? Or stand above it? Deal in facts? Or fling some mud around and hope that what sticks may sway? It's hard to see how this is going to work both ways.
I am prepared to accept, and indeed pretty much hope to see proven, that this programme has opted for dishonest rhetoric, but so far I can only say they are not the only ones dealing in such a thing at the expense of reasoned debate.
Which is a pity, and serves the cause, IMHO, poorly. Especially when, on reaching the concluding several paras here (still none the wiser on Ch4's factual transgressions, mind) there seems to be much about the manipulations being applied by all sides, with very much more short-term, and selfish, agendas, that I can only nod in agreement with.
It would be a shame if this cannot be debated further, and freely.
I think it warrants its own:
Dear Sirs,
I rather suspect that the reason for my first para is explained by the fact that no one could comment. Error message on upload attempt:
No such entry '014124'.
The rest stands:
I find it rather odd, and sad, that, as I arrive back after a very happy family weekend break to engage in my traditional 'surf and mirth' scope, a little late in the day, of the 'quality' major news media blogosphere, that I seem to be the only person to have found this; or at least felt moved to add a comment... so far. Out of 60M them's poor odds.
Especially if we are facing something potentially none too optimal (if the tipping point to Armageddon can be so described) in around a decade, at least by my understanding of the IPPC report.
Thing is, I find myself in an odd position. I care very much about all this, if only for my kids' sake. I am, by any measure, environmentally concerned, and arguably quite active. I may even be, by dint of taking a greater interest than many, fairly well informed. And, most importantly, I care passionately about DOING something, anything, to avoid unnecessary waste, and to find practical, inspirational ways to assist the consuming public to live more environmentally sound lifestyles by choice, and not nannying, guilt, scare or fine.
So I tend to find talking shops at best frustrating, if not actually downright obstructive, by consuming resources, and energies, that could be used more positively.
Sadly, having read and reread this a few times, I am unable to see how anything has been moved ahead much, save to offer a lifeline to the deniers by denying them the very things that they would deny those with a more precautionary bent (that's a lot of denying in one sentence, sorry, but I call 'em as I see 'em). I don't know if such as Al Gore and those others less celebrity-endowed are dead right or completely wrong, but if they're wrong they'll just look silly in a few decades. If they are right, those who are big-oiling into denial will, along with the rest of us, be looking a little red-faced, and not just from embarrassment. Though I do take the point that most will be long dead and buried, and hence not really in a position to care that their book sales have nosedived.
However, I can only see more ammunition here to enable the artillery barrages from extremes on both sides to continue ever more energetically, leaving those who thirst for information, guidance and action still sitting dazed and confused beneath the literary pyrotechnics that rage.
I may be tired from a period spent well if not wisely, but I stumbled on this in regard to the forthcoming show that has yet to be screened, but already generated such a ferocious counter-movement - 'Certainly, there many reasons to deride it. Its contents are largely untrue, for a start. That is Channel 4's problem.' Now I haven't seen it, but this is quite a thing. 'Largely untrue contents' are pretty much the smoking gun to put down this nag before it even leaves the starting blocks.
But...
I can't for the life of me seem to locate what these untrue contents are, at least from the piece written. What I do get are trash jobs on those involved, and unless I am very much mistaken, and harking to only a few blogs back, this seemed to be a tactic not considered quite cricket when applied to those who are in favour of Al Gore, IPCC , Uncle Tom Cobbly and all in the man-made corner. So which is to be. In gutter? Or stand above it? Deal in facts? Or fling some mud around and hope that what sticks may sway? It's hard to see how this is going to work both ways.
I am prepared to accept, and indeed pretty much hope to see proven, that this programme has opted for dishonest rhetoric, but so far I can only say they are not the only ones dealing in such a thing at the expense of reasoned debate.
Which is a pity, and serves the cause, IMHO, poorly. Especially when, on reaching the concluding several paras here (still none the wiser on Ch4's factual transgressions, mind) there seems to be much about the manipulations being applied by all sides, with very much more short-term, and selfish, agendas, that I can only nod in agreement with.
It would be a shame if this cannot be debated further, and freely.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Cat. Pigeons. Small room. Retire immediately.
Dominic Lawson: Here is another inconvenient truth (but this one will infuriate the Green lobby)
In light of my last few blogs, I rather suspect it might.
I take no pleasure in being right, but it is obvious the whole debate has been hijacked by polarised (no pun intended, though it is apt) extremes from either side, leaving a massive void of greater reason and compromise almost (I hope) unable to cope, and fill it for those who do not live and breathe the deepest detail of it all.
Good Lord above, this is the Indy. And here, in the spirit of balance (which is why I carry it here) that its name implies, is the only article of substance I could locate in it today, and it's not... how should we say... exactly helping the cause, hmnn?
I have to admit to being a tad te'ed off, because of course I will now have to watch this debunking, and make a comment. On the strength of this review, it warrants attention.
Who knows, I may soften my views on global warming, its causes and what needs to be done to mitigate the effects.
But I still don't think it will change me much from my mission to DO whatever I can to avoid waste and boost efficiencies whenever and wherever possible.
I'll think I'll leave the hot air thing for others to muck about with some more.
Indy - Global warming: An inconvenient truth or hot air?
Guardian - Why Channel 4 has got it wrong over climate change
I find it rather odd, and sad, that, as I arrive back after a very happy family weekend break to engage in my traditional 'surf and mirth' scope, a little late in the day, of the 'quality' major news media blogosphere, that I seem to be the only person to have found this; or at least felt moved to add a comment... so far. Out of 60M them's poor odds.
Especially if we are facing something potentially none too optimal (if the tipping point to Armageddon can be so described) in around a decade, at least by my understanding of the IPPC report.
Thing is, I find myself in an odd position. I care very much about all this, if only for my kids' sake. I am, by any measure, environmentally concerned, and arguably quite active. I may even be, by dint of taking a greater interest than many, fairly well informed. And, most importantly, I care passionately about DOING something, anything, to avoid unnecessary waste, and to find practical, inspirational ways to assist the consuming public to live more environmentally sound lifestyles by choice, and not nannying, guilt, scare or fine.
So I tend to find talking shops at best frustrating, if not actually downright obstructive, by consuming resources, and energies, that could be used more positively.
Sadly, having read and reread this a few times, I am unable to see how anything has been moved ahead much, save to offer a lifeline to the deniers by denying them the very things that they would deny those with a more precautionary bent (that's a lot of denying in one sentence, sorry, but I call 'em as I see 'em). I don't know if such as Al Gore and those others less celebrity-endowed are dead right or completely wrong, but if they're wrong they'll just look silly in a few decades. If they are right, those who are big-oiling into denial will, along with the rest of us, be looking a little red-faced, and not just from embarrassment. Though I do take the point that most will be long dead and buried, and hence not really in a position to care that their book sales have nosedived.
However, I can only see more ammunition here to enable the artillery barrages from extremes on both sides to continue ever more energetically, leaving those who thirst for information, guidance and action still sitting dazed and confused beneath the literary pyrotechnics that rage.
I may be tired from a period spent well if not wisely, but I stumbled on this in regard to the forthcoming show that has yet to be screened, but already generated such a ferocious counter-movement - 'Certainly, there many reasons to deride it. Its contents are largely untrue, for a start. That is Channel 4's problem.' Now I haven't seen it, but this is quite a thing. 'Largely untrue contents' are pretty much the smoking gun to put down this nag before it even leaves the starting blocks.
But...
I can't for the life of me seem to locate what these untrue contents are, at least from the piece written. What I do get are trash jobs on those involved, and unless I am very much mistaken, and harking to only a few blogs back, this seemed to be a tactic not considered quite cricket when applied to those who are in favour of Al Gore, IPCC , Uncle Tom Cobbly and all in the man-made corner. So which is to be. In gutter? Or stand above it? Deal in facts? Or fling some mud around and hope that what sticks may sway? It's hard to see how this is going to work both ways.
I am prepared to accept, and indeed pretty much hope to see proven, that this programme has opted for dishonest rhetoric, but so far I can only say they are not the only ones dealing in such a thing at the expense of reasoned debate.
Which is a pity, and serves the cause, IMHO, poorly. Especially when, on reaching the concluding several paras here (still none the wiser on Ch4's factual transgressions, mind) there seems to be much about the manipulations being applied by all sides, with very much more short-term, and selfish, agendas, that I can only nod in agreement with.
In light of my last few blogs, I rather suspect it might.
I take no pleasure in being right, but it is obvious the whole debate has been hijacked by polarised (no pun intended, though it is apt) extremes from either side, leaving a massive void of greater reason and compromise almost (I hope) unable to cope, and fill it for those who do not live and breathe the deepest detail of it all.
Good Lord above, this is the Indy. And here, in the spirit of balance (which is why I carry it here) that its name implies, is the only article of substance I could locate in it today, and it's not... how should we say... exactly helping the cause, hmnn?
I have to admit to being a tad te'ed off, because of course I will now have to watch this debunking, and make a comment. On the strength of this review, it warrants attention.
Who knows, I may soften my views on global warming, its causes and what needs to be done to mitigate the effects.
But I still don't think it will change me much from my mission to DO whatever I can to avoid waste and boost efficiencies whenever and wherever possible.
I'll think I'll leave the hot air thing for others to muck about with some more.
Indy - Global warming: An inconvenient truth or hot air?
Guardian - Why Channel 4 has got it wrong over climate change
I find it rather odd, and sad, that, as I arrive back after a very happy family weekend break to engage in my traditional 'surf and mirth' scope, a little late in the day, of the 'quality' major news media blogosphere, that I seem to be the only person to have found this; or at least felt moved to add a comment... so far. Out of 60M them's poor odds.
Especially if we are facing something potentially none too optimal (if the tipping point to Armageddon can be so described) in around a decade, at least by my understanding of the IPPC report.
Thing is, I find myself in an odd position. I care very much about all this, if only for my kids' sake. I am, by any measure, environmentally concerned, and arguably quite active. I may even be, by dint of taking a greater interest than many, fairly well informed. And, most importantly, I care passionately about DOING something, anything, to avoid unnecessary waste, and to find practical, inspirational ways to assist the consuming public to live more environmentally sound lifestyles by choice, and not nannying, guilt, scare or fine.
So I tend to find talking shops at best frustrating, if not actually downright obstructive, by consuming resources, and energies, that could be used more positively.
Sadly, having read and reread this a few times, I am unable to see how anything has been moved ahead much, save to offer a lifeline to the deniers by denying them the very things that they would deny those with a more precautionary bent (that's a lot of denying in one sentence, sorry, but I call 'em as I see 'em). I don't know if such as Al Gore and those others less celebrity-endowed are dead right or completely wrong, but if they're wrong they'll just look silly in a few decades. If they are right, those who are big-oiling into denial will, along with the rest of us, be looking a little red-faced, and not just from embarrassment. Though I do take the point that most will be long dead and buried, and hence not really in a position to care that their book sales have nosedived.
However, I can only see more ammunition here to enable the artillery barrages from extremes on both sides to continue ever more energetically, leaving those who thirst for information, guidance and action still sitting dazed and confused beneath the literary pyrotechnics that rage.
I may be tired from a period spent well if not wisely, but I stumbled on this in regard to the forthcoming show that has yet to be screened, but already generated such a ferocious counter-movement - 'Certainly, there many reasons to deride it. Its contents are largely untrue, for a start. That is Channel 4's problem.' Now I haven't seen it, but this is quite a thing. 'Largely untrue contents' are pretty much the smoking gun to put down this nag before it even leaves the starting blocks.
But...
I can't for the life of me seem to locate what these untrue contents are, at least from the piece written. What I do get are trash jobs on those involved, and unless I am very much mistaken, and harking to only a few blogs back, this seemed to be a tactic not considered quite cricket when applied to those who are in favour of Al Gore, IPCC , Uncle Tom Cobbly and all in the man-made corner. So which is to be. In gutter? Or stand above it? Deal in facts? Or fling some mud around and hope that what sticks may sway? It's hard to see how this is going to work both ways.
I am prepared to accept, and indeed pretty much hope to see proven, that this programme has opted for dishonest rhetoric, but so far I can only say they are not the only ones dealing in such a thing at the expense of reasoned debate.
Which is a pity, and serves the cause, IMHO, poorly. Especially when, on reaching the concluding several paras here (still none the wiser on Ch4's factual transgressions, mind) there seems to be much about the manipulations being applied by all sides, with very much more short-term, and selfish, agendas, that I can only nod in agreement with.
Sorry, my buttons got pushed. What a waste of a Friday Morning.
Especially when a picture is worth 1,827 words.
'On Junkk Male2's very very very long post: Thanks, it has its moments. But we do not need Brits telling us how to spell, especially since American "humor" and "civilize" are closer to their respectively Latin and Greek etyma than are the British bastardizations of those words, with an unnecessary "u" and an overly historicized "s." And hitting Al Gore over the head with Mahatma Gandhi is totally unfair, for the reason mentioned above.'
When talking shops go bad....
'Whilst I am not so sure some posters, especially myself, would even agree anyone is attacking anyone (it just comes off a bit like screaming racist at the drop of a hat), I am glad to see at least the effort I put into a serious issue (pseudo or not, the word ‘scandal’ was the opening post, though not one I would have chosen) has been acknowledged, especially in response to what I presumed to be an invitation to take part in a discussion – ‘Still basking in Oscar's glow, Al Gore makes headlines for using a lotta energy. An inconvenient truth or an ugly smear campaign?’
Despite Mark Twain’s fine copywriting advice, I often have a lot to say, but it is sincere and it is well meant. Hopefully this next effort will be better appreciated for its content rather than its length (oh, missus, for the Benny Hillophiles out there). I'll try and do a USA Today version, but no promises... or charts. Sometimes important issues are hard to deal with superficially lest things get taken out of context or suffer from lack of proper investigation and explanation, don't you find? Imagine a Simpson’s length version (including ad breaks) of an important issue, say, like Global Warming (I know, they did do one, and it was very good, though the real message may have passed some by).
Along with a few others who posted in reply to the invitation, I do not believe that the intention of the original post or blog was meant to solicit responses only from those who had something supportive to say to the proposition. Though I guess some in the team can believe certain balls only get played with when you support the side who owns them. But you could argue it’s like those who make and sell baby bottles getting in a snit at any publication that carries a less than flattering report on their safety to babies, and then bunker down and have a group ‘others suck’ in babybottle.com with fellow baby bottlers. Best to take the opportunity to engage in discussion, persuade and prove your product, or case, is valid. If it is. Saying those who pass comment are in the pay of non-babybottlism is just throwing... er... baby bottles out of the pram.
In all my years living and working in the States I never really saw the truth of the old adage 'Separated by a common language', but in that vast, great country, with distance amplifying demographic differences, I must say my sense of humour did meet varied responses. It is to my shame that I neglected to remember this in posting to a blog that spans not just the world but, more importantly, the Atlantic to the Pacific, centre of the known universe.
I would also never presume to tell any one anything. I often opine. I always ask questions. I may suggest another course. But I am not sufficiently convinced of my rectitude in anything to ‘tell’ anyone anything. I sometimes envy those who do, as it allows them to insert their values in places where others may hesitate, or not be welcome. Often this can be with favorable outcomes (depending on whom you ask). On occasion it can be seen as an unmitigated global disaster.
So my opening remark was merely intended as humor. Just as my American co-workers would remind me (I thought with a degree of irony of their own), 'there is no 'I' in team, I felt my light-hearted play on words would be appreciated as a suitable introduction to a piece on the value on ‘team debate’ being conducted in the spirit of levity, with humor at its core. But in being put right on the error of my ways at least I have had a lesson in both ancient linguistics and nationalistic fervour (whoops).
Sadly, you don't need to go looking too hard for offence. If you seek it, it will find you. So I am sorry for any given. It was unintentional.
What I am not sorry for is having a thoughtful opinion on a core issue that the environmental movement faces today.
It is undoubted that the single greatest task that we’re (if I may make so bold as a non-leader) facing today is the motivation of the masses. When a voter or consumer stirs, politicians and corporations pay heed. But I am not so sure about media. By my understanding they are supposed to objectively form and reflect public sentiment and opinion, but it seems all too often they set out to shape it. This may be due to the unelected nature of the senior officers at the helm (not a problem exclusive to the media, one should add). It is hard not to let personal views stray into subjective issues. Just as it is hard for an employee not to see that their next paycheque can depend on supporting those views. Ain't democracy and its defenders wonderful?
It's also desperately unfair, but the media will seldom allow any public figure to change their mind, even over a span of decades.
This is not a problem for Mr. Gore, as his commitment in the long term is undoubted, if perhaps not his effectiveness while in office and, until fairly recently, out of it (by my, non-US awareness). However, as Steven T concedes, this is just the beginning, and the media scene needs to be managed, and managed well to get the result we all are aiming for. That was my main point. What is, is. And how such as the UK press reports needs to be addressed, especially if it is indeed disturbingly unrepresentative of the true facts. We are talking a global situation here. (Tip : defences like ‘Most of the electricity in TN comes from hydro and nuclear, and so doesn't generate all that much CO2 anyway’ wouldn’t fly too well here. We don’t waste because we can afford to. Especially when setting examples. So as a suggestion I’d drop that one).
Having spent my time in the States in the more affluent regions of the Coasts, Texas and Utah, I do not feel qualified to speak of the blue-collar (wo)man's views there, or how they get reflected, but I do wonder how representative the views expressed in a niche medium such as this are reflective of national commitment and belief. As we are talking the future of the planet, the number of participants outside of a relatively small clique is still disappointingly small.
Which returns us to the point at hand. The BBC, with access to a nation of 60M, and a more than sympathetic commitment to green issues, was quite happy to run the negative reporting with little context. If it's juicy, tabloids such as The Sun will deliver a print readership in the many millions. You can score positive coverage with celebrity, but it is a tenuous pact that you enter into, and the sword is double-edged, and once unsheathed can be turned very quickly and be hard to return.
Yes, Cameron Diaz will be most welcome to stand in Hyde Park and tell us why she drives a G-Wiz. But it will be asked how she got here to do it. And while Jamiroquai may say that his latest gig to get in the Guinness Book of Records (in a plane) was offset by 'his people', there are those who may suggest that not going up there in the first place may have served the planet, here and now, less well than his immediate career PR.
I mentioned Gandhi because a previous poster had, and not as an ‘attack’. I do not see anything in what I wrote accusing Mr. Gore of anything, unfairly or not. I merely felt it an suitable analogy to give pause for thought to those who expressed the view that double standards are OK so long as it is in a good cause. Especially when dealing with the media and the masses.
Because I simply beg to disagree. If you are trying to persuade the working public, and no longer have a compliant (greater good for the future vs. great headline tomorrow) press to help you shape their views, you better have a good story, with no holes, and an even better team in place to sell it, both in front and in back of camera. I for one simply cannot support ‘a rationale for putting the stress on the problem as opposed to proposing solutions’. As any life assurer will tell you, you don’t sell a policy by scaring people with death. But these boys still make sales... and have been doing so for years... how?
I just think that if you are setting yourself up as a 'leader' or spokesperson for mitigating our effects though personal behaviour, you need to set the credibility bar at a manageable level. It's one, wonderful (though I would imagine the ownership of the resulting valuable invention may result in that being covered, as simply good business) thing to put up $25M chump change as a prize to kill greenhouse gasses, but is it helped by our Mr. Branson also punting rich old folk into orbit to have their Kodak moment on top of a few Brazilian forest's worth of greenhouse gas compo? I'm erring on, at best, a mixed message for those who may see their house rates go up if they don't put insulation in, which many can't afford. I’m only sorry they are not reading this, as I doubt many are.
But it's going to be a great target for those sipping their Fairtrade Fortnight mocha latté dusted with airflown (isn’t that... no... never mind) truffles, who can afford the money, time and selective causes to support without much denting their cosy lifestyles. How many buying the products advertised here do so ‘as well as’ rather than ‘instead of’?
Green is good, but not much for the planet's chances if it is merely seen as a hobbyhorse to jump upon to further conspicuous consumption in another guise. I am not advocating hair-shirtism, but a bit of cutting back could be a good way to go. And to inspire others to embrace the lead, those at the 'top' (wherever that is any more, and I am afraid, as a tea-party sympathizer from the old oppressors’ country, I have my own views on who deserve to be called ‘leaders') could well look at the examples they set.
But in light of some defensive replies (I get one from caniscandia, who with some irony gets one from another. Even poor old Green Granny (no ageism intended) gets a serve for not toeing the line. How divide and rule is that!) I see here to a post about good humor, may I wish you the best of British luck.
If this is the best you can do in the country that has the most power to effect change, the planet is going to need it.
Me, I'm off now to do some more about it. In my shed.
(1,827 words. Sorry, caniscandida;('
I now know while I will not support those who think they know better try and bully those who simply wish to know more. At least on my site.
Grist
Meanwhile, over the pond [link] ...
Knock yourselves out.
Cool. 7 words. I hope caniscandida will be happy... er.. ier
Addendum: We've made up!
You say humor, I say humour...
... but 'the special relationship' remains so long as we maintain our sense of...!
Oo-er... outed. Yes, 'tis I. Thank you for the faint praise, so I will continue writing. Noting your comment on my lengthy predilections (and a slight case of RSI), I made my next (on the Colbert post subsequently) reply brief to the point of invisibility. I rather think it all rather proved a few of my points, mind.
Moods were fouled all round I'd hazard. I just fear the eventual victim will be rational debate and clear, persuasive communication to the general public. And mixed messages.
I actually popped a tweak in the Brit Fairtrader's blog to wonder about the food mile consequences of his actions.
Above and beyond the affordability to some of these worthy efforts by urban journalists, there is also the fact that they send out some contradictory notions that need to be weighed up. Save underpaid mango farmer? Save planet he/she stands on with the rest of us from unnecessary emissions by simply doing without? Tricky dilemma for the ethical activist.
Mine is how to visit my wife's family in Singapore as she hasn't seen them in a few years (maybe I can find a conference to attend and offset?). Green ain't easy, is it?
And so it goes on, and on, and...
They can often afford to save time and save money.
Last time I looked most have to work to earn money to pay mortgages, feed and educate kids, etc. Work means 50 weeks a year at home. A lucky few have other sources of income to fund their beliefs and, one trusts, their practices.
But you are right; I try to spend most of my money and my time at home funding and generating content for my free re:use ideas website. It actually seems to help some save money, AND time, AND the planet (a bit).
Still not too clear how I do this and fulfil family obligations.
Anyway, as we're big on boats being a cure, try this:
Maybe that freighter trip would have served civilisation better by not being taken at all. Hmmmn? I wonder what it was loaded with? Or picking up for the return? Consumer goods to save folk time and spend more money? Who's to say?
I have to say I still find being green a bit of an exercise in compromise. I envy those who are able to be so black and white about it.
It will be interesting to see who can serve the interests of the future best by motivating the masses with pragmatic and realistic solutions, as opposed to whacking out simple sound bites, no matter how dead right they may be.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
And the band played o...
All those scientists may still be wrong
I've just popped over today at a late stage from another debate (prompted by a possible discrepancy between what he says 'we' should do, and does himself... not a predilection exclusive to just him, mind) about Mr. Gore's role as a leader of one set of views.
And again I witness what seems more like a game of shuffleboard... to the death... on the Titanic, with the victor hopefully enjoying a last piece by the band before all go under.
All I know is I'd prefer to be around to see him (and others) proved wrong than right.
But then I guess the devil was always in the details.
I've just popped over today at a late stage from another debate (prompted by a possible discrepancy between what he says 'we' should do, and does himself... not a predilection exclusive to just him, mind) about Mr. Gore's role as a leader of one set of views.
And again I witness what seems more like a game of shuffleboard... to the death... on the Titanic, with the victor hopefully enjoying a last piece by the band before all go under.
All I know is I'd prefer to be around to see him (and others) proved wrong than right.
But then I guess the devil was always in the details.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)