Numbers game

Just love it when arts and science meet

The oxygen crisis

I live in hope that just one liberal media outlet will hire someone who didn't do classics for Oxford of History of Social Work and Knitting at Kingston Poly.

Weekend (of planet) report

I wrote this for here: Insert “swindle” joke here.

Shame to waste, as it will pretty much serve to explain what I was up to all weekend.

I usually figure it's not worth posting by the time blog replies hit a hundred, because if I cannot be bothered to read past the first few score (I just did, before hitting 'submit', and realise that about half a dozen folk are just lobbing entrenched viewpoints to and fro, backed by ever more unscientific 'support' for arguments) why would anyone do the same to get as far as mine?

But as I have been away, it is topical to what I was doing and, goshdarnit, it's good practice for my blog, so it's not really a total waste after all. At least for me.

This weekend I was in both Cardiff and Plymouth, pitching in a NESTA competition called FameLab, which is all about bringing science, and an appreciation of same, to the viewing public. So, inspired in no small measure by the IPCC report, the Channel 4 doco and the discussion on this very blog a few days ago, as I had nothing else prepared I decided to spout forth on 'Sick Planet Syndrome; Myths and Facts. Causes and Cures'.

The first day was an unmitigated disaster, as I hadn't prepared very well and also had an arc lamp in my eyes for the precise 3 minutes one got to hold forth, and hence failed to see the 20' countdown signal, thus missing my conclusion.

This was that, at present, either camp could be right. Or wrong... evidently, at least as far as the masses might be concerned. (I have a personal view, of course).

Sadly, getting this in when I did manage to say it the next day didn't help much. I even wore a black cowboy hat for 'big oil climate denying science' and a jaunty white eco-hat for 'we're toast, green taxes all round' science, to make my point that not all science (especially green) was, could be or should be black or white, pro or con, with nothing allowed in between. On reflection, it may also have not helped that for the former viewpoint I also said a big 'Yee-haa!" to camera and big-upped the doco, as Ch4 is one of the sponsors.

And speaking of not helping, I also opined it certainly wasn't doing much of value knocking spots off each other by such methods - used by opposing groups, and played up by a compliant if not complicit media - as attacking the person, or who is backing them or whatever, and not the facts.

My jury (or rather judging panel) of eminent scientists and TV producers were still not impressed. For this show they wanted... needed a conclusion. A solution as I had promised. That was my whole point. I had offered one, at least as I saw it, which was accepting there WAS NOT always a definitive conclusion, and you can often need to act before you have one, on the best you've got. I guess that's the Civil Engineer in me kicking in. We prefer things not to fall over and will move to shore things up before they topple, Tower of Pisa notwithstanding.

So much in science is a journey rather than a destination, and it can be fun to share the ride rather than dispense a unidirectional commentary.

But if the train is rattling around a bit maybe I believe it would be best to stop the rocking (I would say of the boat, but that would be a mixed metaphor too far) and simply work together on stabilising it now, rather than keeping thrashing about trying to prove who is right or wrong on whether it will fall off the rails before getting to the end-point.

No, it seems quick fixes, soundbites and being seen to be 'righter and brighter' rather than just doing better is the order of the day. Questions being posed and left open are not favoured when answers abound, even if they are poorly founded ones. Or, possibly, just plain wrong. Delivery, with a neat opening, middle and ending that leaves nothing for the imagination, or the individual to ponder or discover for themselves, is to be ruthlessly enforced. It seems that the last thing anyone from the [insert (profession)-elite here] wants is the masses actually having an opinion or trying to influence how their lives are directed rather than those who know better.

I think I understand now why I get so agitated by science reporting these days. These guys are not required by a huge 'system' to allow anything trouble the viewer by way of loose ends. Hence with climate change: 'the planet is doomed... for this reason'. Period. Or, 'the planet is fine... for this reason'. Period. Nice soundbite. Nice headline. Nice ratings.

Not awfully helpful, though, when we're not too sure.

I'd like to wish all well and scoot off to another place where I can work with those from science and media (and government and commerce, and...) who are more concerned with moving on whilst trying to locate a tangible negotiated result, rather than staying still to bully through unconditional, theoretical Pyrrhic victories. But sadly the venue options on this planet are looking limited. And just getting there may open up a whole new can of worms.

Seems I might owe Richard Branson an apology. Maybe Virgin Galactic is the best chance we've got. But bumping some billionaire from his Kodak moment atop a cloud of greenhouse gasses seems such a compromised way of doing it, and there is the small matter of effecting the swap.

Bad Science. Naughty Science. No wonder the majority of the public switches off. And of those who do try to stay with it, like my mate Nick (a computer science grad), when both sides get in the gutter the more optimistic option being espoused often gets a more willing ear. So now I have to work a bit harder to keep him of the view that waiting until the Durkin's of this world are proved 100% wrong may not be the best plan for now. Or, indeed, the future. What are my chances?

STOP PRESS: Here's the promo in my in-box from the nation's broadcaster for tonight:

MONDAY 12 MARCH 22:30 GMT - BBC TWO
FROM GAVIN ESLER

CLIMATE CHANGE
As Gordon Brown and David Cameron compete on being greener-than-thou, we examine the science once again. Despite the fact that most reputable scientists agree that human activity in raising carbon emissions is leading to global warming, could they - in fact - be wrong?

ADDENDUM:

I remain impressed with the principle of Bad Science, and for sure a lot of the intellectual firepower, but sadly not so much the practice. There is too much a sense of being 'in with the in crowd', which to me weakens the objectivity of the comments, and I think reflects poorly on the moderator which, in this case, is the principal.

I'm intrigued.

Firstly that anyone still checks back this far, and secondly would post at 5:52pm to ask someone who last posted at 12.47pm to give up, when there have been several posts subsequently. Unless that tricky in/out missing post thing has cropped up again to catch the likes of me out too.

But mainly I'm interested in why EssTee may be deemed to be embarrassing themselves and, hence, why they should be required to give up.

I may not agree with some or indeed all of what they are saying, but there are some interesting points being made that I will take the time to assess, along with others.

And having been witness to, and indeed too often (for my blood pressure) a participant in escalating flame wars, I can't see some of the accusations that have managed to gang up on poor old EssTee to be entirely warranted.

To this infrequent, though interested visitor, it's coming across as rather too cosy a club, and a rather one-sided one at that.

Which does not seem very healthy for debate.

EssTee, for what's it's worth, as far as I am concerned you can keep on banging away. I'd avoid addressing anything other than the facts, and rising to the bait of those who would tempt you in venturing into unproductive areas.

But when you are on the facts, please try and ensure that they are as good as you can make them, with appropriate attribution, and let them speak for themselves.

With luck, and reasoned arguments put forward by those with differing opinions, I may come to a reasonable opinion of my own.

I may even decide such a forum is worth adding it to. I admire your courage, if not your standpoint and aspects of style, because this is not a playing field that seems very level, and the ball is too easily threatened with retraction should one look like playing for any but the home team.

ADD-ADDENDUM

A pleasant enough reply overnight. Actually, the point made got me to thinking about the function of and difference between a Blog with comments and a Forum. Junkk.com has both. I must confess to being woeful at dipping in to our own Forum and due to time constraints rather shamefully leave it to others. I am trying to solicit a team of moderators.

Because, with the obvious concern on accusations of agenda-driven 'censorship', I appreciate the role of the originator in keeping things on track. I, for one, would not allow attacking the person rather than the message without comment and even censure.

Thanks Deano,

I didn't know about the Forum. I just get the odd email from Ben with a link, and this one was a major flag to click on for me. What comments are meant for posting here then?

And while I came to it only late in the day I couldn't resist pitching in to this one (it is quite topical in the news as most will gather, and my major concern is the consuming public's take on it all). And again later as I did feel that very good rebuttals of poor, over-edited or agenda-driven mantras were being eroded by sharing a sea of poor, over-edited or agenda-driven mantras.

So actually, I now have a lot to worry about. I already spend waaaaay too much time on major media blogs and forums sifting away in the hope (frequently satisfied, more often than not frustrated) of sensible debate and worthwhile information and directions to tangible areas of worthwhile activity.

I rather suspect, and the evidence here presents a concern, that anything that does not toe a majority line may need to stand ready for a 'robust' challenge - which may well be warranted and even demanded - and one can only hope that this will be the facts and not the person or pejorative groupings.

Sadly, despite this it looks like a rich seam, so there goes the social life even more!

Last Rights

Against Nature - Channel 4

I’m going to break a firmly held principle and comment on something I have not... yet... seen. Again.

In a certain irony, last night as I expounded to a group at Aston Science Park on how we can harness consumer power to effect positive environmental behavior changes through incentive and reward, my twins had decided that some Japanese cartoon was a better bet on Sky than what I had programmed to record. Let’s hope I am as successful in helping save the planet as the spiky doe-eyed dude and his posse of mutant mates.

What struck me at the event was the enthusiasm of all those present for tangible DOING, as opposed to endless debate on esoteric issues, jockeying to be smarter and righter. And while these were folk from the SME’s prepared to stay from early to late evening, I hope it would not be unfair to say many present were representative of the average, working, Previa and not Prius person general public.

So I wonder what they would have made of this? Doubtless there will be great debate in the eco-media, including such as the Indy and Guardian (no chance to scope the onlines yet, and BBC Breakfast doesn’t seem concerned), but I’m pretty sure it will all pass last night’s group by. Unless an editor scents some headlines from contention, and blows it up for a quick ratings fix. Unlikely with X Factor looking like it was rigged.

A lot of my audience confessed to be dubious about what I was pitching as all they knew beforehand was that I was what Jeremy Clarkson has dubbed a ‘mentalist. I am glad to say I left with some converts inspired.

And here is my main point. We still very much seem to be in a ‘media rules of engagement-controlled’ era of green being only viewed in black and white.

In the dark green corner are ‘activists’, empowered eco Nazi book-authors, Al Gore, IPCC scientists, certain government ministers (even a newly converted, if confusingly mixed message PM)... and a largely compliant ‘left’ media ready to publish or broadcast relatively unchallenged global warming propaganda.

In the black gold corner are ‘deniers’, empowered ex eco fascist traitor book-authors, a few government ministers (at least out loud, including a confusingly mixed word vs. deed PM)... and a largely compliant ‘right’ media ready to publish or broadcast relatively unchallenged big-oil lobby-funded propaganda.

And all this lot have very lucrative careers already, and ahead, exchanging artillery exchanges of claim and counter claim, accusation and counter accusation at each other. Facts go out the window, as for every one pro, there are a score cons. And one Prof’s howler is another think-tank PhD’s thesis.

Meanwhile, sod all seems to get done.

And stuck in no person’s land, I believe, are the vast majority of folk like those I was with last night, keen to understand the issues and act rationally on them based on halfway decent information and reasoned debate with some objective outcomes.

To me the issue is simple. In ten years time, if one set are right, we can all breathe easier and a few folk are a bit red faced. The down side is that some economically driven development may not take place and... if you subscribe to the views of such as Mr. Durkin or Bjorn Lomborg, there will be serious consequences to the state of health and lives in the Third World.

If the other set are right, breathing at all may be a tad tricky in some parts, and faces will possibly be redder still, now for exterior reasons as well. Those in the Third World, if they are around, may find the rest of us have our own issues to worry about.

So which side should we err on? I’m voting caution. Especially when there are quite a few credible science guys around who seem to be getting us to quite high percent levels of probability. I’m prepared to move before we are 100% sure global warming WAS catastrophic.

I’ll need to dig it from my blog verbatim, but a long time ago I read a good analogy. If you are in a plane full of journalists and aero engineers flying across the Atlantic, and a problem with it’s structure is raised, do you side with the majority of them who think it best to turn back to check, or do you go with the journalists sitting with the guys in Club class who are just getting comfy, and would prefer to stay on course in case it’s nothing?

It would be wrong to say I don’t care about these esoteric debates, but I find them essentially irrelevant. Natural or man made, serious or not, I simply believe that, for the sake of my kids’ kids, every effort needs to be made to reduce pollution and waste and improve efficiencies. Plus match this all with a reasoned downturn in our aspirations and demands for expansion of consumption as they may be leading us on a downward spiral.

And one thing is key. What I call the EnviROI – the return on investment has to help the planet recover, and not just be to sell books, get ratings, secure salaries, careers or pensions, meet targets or make those who think they are more worthy feel warm and fuzzy. So I have all sorts of doubts that get me offside with a lot of folk. I’m not sure about wind turbines. I think the Government has totally screwed up road pricing, which is necessary but I petitioned against on their terms, And anything with the words ‘carbon’ and ‘trading’ bring me out in cold sweat as all I see is vast hordes of even richer City folk going with Guardian journalists and Mr. Miliband to meet other green elites in Bali to discuss it all.

Sadly, like you Ben, in trying to arrive at conclusions, information I can trust is in short supply, and looks like remaining so for a while.

And from the evidence of this blog (with a few notable, and noble opinions and links, for which I am grateful – though oddly the follow up posts by those who saw the show almost all left me none the wiser to those preceding it), I guess I, and most of the population will need to hunker down in our bunkers a while longer as those who claim know better than us argue over who is right.

Me, I’ll just get back to my shed and keep on doing anything I can to improve matters.

I just had a gander at a few of the follow ups, and they kinda prove my point. Death-match, winner takes the first iceberg shuffleboard on the Titanic.

God spare us from those who would tell us what to think... to the death. All of ours.

ADD:

QED.

Just back from my shed. Cripes.

At least a very few have tried to see a middle ground, work within it and understand it enough to work out a positive solution.

But as to the rest.... 'ding'... Round [pick a number]!

Shame.

Guardian - Noxious emissions

For what it's worth (not much, I'd hazard, looking at the comments here), Bad Science has, is and doubtless will be providing a complementary venue for a not dissimilar cock-fighting tournament.

So I'll just cut 'n paste my 2p here.

Indy - Global warming gurus set a bad example

Dear Mr. Lawson,

We're guessing that would make you a 'no' then?

Times - The global warming debate overheats

Open to what... exactly?

Is it just me, or could one wish that journos from one side of a paper actually ponder what those at another my be writing about, and attempt to cover all the issues?

BA fears ill wind may blow from 'open skies'

When others zig. Zag.

Odd how I see things differently.

Wacko Creationist Indoctrination Footage

It's funny, but I took it the total opposite way as a brilliantly subtle, mocking propaganda piece against the clunking efforts of such creationists to discredit evolution. From slick Woomera (he was an Aussie, right?) Willy at the start to our Nobel-aspiring Pierced Brosnan at the end, the whole lot of them seemed to me to pretty much do a pretty good job of showing where their brains are at from their own mouths. And it had been editted that way to do so (cut off on my view before any credits rolled to see who produced it). Didn't the lady interviewer say she was pre-evolution when being put straight by the highly articulate goth yoof in the shades? And in that regard perhaps more effective than shutting anything down, which seems to be what these guys were being held up for derision in advocating, placard after placard, song after song, confused kid after confused kid, the notion of evolution.

At least we can reply on the media

Trouble is, I don't think we can rely on them necessarily where it counts.

Bad Science.

'That's Sir Trev McD.... and you can't buy a title that good without having made a serious contribution to, er... what?

Dontcha just lay in bed at night feeling that little bit more secure in the knowledge that those tasked and/or paid to make sure our lives and those of our kids are safe, are in the hands of such a caring, competent bunch of folks.

Next thing they'll be doing is giving airtime to any bozo who can rack up ratings by claiming climate change will just make holidays in Bognor a better reason to get into sunscreen futures.

As to Sir. T, well, let's not go there. I doubt he will be.'