Spring 2010 - a new, better, beginning to the decade?

I write that fully aware of the initial, and unfolding tragedy that is Haiti.

But sadly, as she can delight, nature can be fickle, and brutal. Such events have happened before, and will happen again. Probably with even worse consequences, as more and more are crammed together near the points she chooses to unleash her powers.

'We' all will do what we can, with luck with speed and coherence, and an eye to the future, too. Another story, another time. This is, selfishly, closer to home.

My optimism is founded on no more than a few exchanges online lately, when I have been feeling for a while that the net is at best spinning (in many cases, too often, literally) on is axis 'talking', and at worst a very potent force for negativity.

Using the predominately vanity (I fear I do not have the desire, or skills to make it 'professional' enough to earn revenue - my main aim is to archive thought more than gain numbers) medium of twitter, I have taken to adding to the conceit by positing philosophical musings. One such was this:

'I disagree with you'. So long as sincerely held, and politely put, should be the start of a worthwhile conversation; not the end of it.

It was inspired by a conversation I was engaged upon, which may be followed here:

Guardian - Everybody's talking about: the snow, nuclear fears and birds in the big freeze

As may be gathered it has been, to date (and will with luck remain unsullied as such), a pleasant experience, I hope all round, if possibly actually worthwhile (to posters and readers alike) as well. I almost didn't engage as the pages of the Guardian can be...'challenging'... to those who follow no particular tribal path, but I am glad I did.

It is a rare pleasure to find an influencer such as this journalist, who I fear is sadly all too rare, especially when it comes to reaching out and being tolerant of contrary views. For its relative size the Guardian is a powerful force in the world of 'Green', and knowing such attitudes can exist there make me value it as a source, and often (but not always) objective one, all the more.

One related conversation, coincidentally that transpired today, has highlighted how so many things can get 'politicised' so easily beyond facts that should really have no bearing on one's voting inclinations, class, race or anything else.

Think Politics - Turning Away From Right and Left

Are we being served?

A climate of...?

A few points about my article

Biases, U-turns, and the BBC's climate coverage

If you can be bothered to read these, and the comments generated as a consequence, I'd be interested in how you feel afterwards.

Here is my 2d'worth:

Coming in at this juncture one risks feeling rather like some poor non-com who has been ported into the dead centre of a no-person's land. And one between two mighty armies (if comprising about half a dozen, running along the trenches firing away to look extensive) shoveling ordnance into artillery pieces with no real concern as to where the explosion is, so long as it is big enough to raise a cheer from the 'home tribe's' reserves. So I have to say that I have a certain empathy with the image conjured (at least) by this analogy, as one kindly served a few before trying to help with my education in the past....

564. At 09:28am on 20 Oct 2009, rossglory wrote:

errrr, no. what i have noticed is the following exchange over and over again:

denier: can you explain why the sky is green?
alarmist: the latest science shows it's not green but blue.
denier: can you explain why the sky is green?
alarmist: the latest science shows it's not green but blue.
denier: can you explain why the sky is green?
alarmist: i think i'm wasting my time
denier: has anyone noticed alarmists refusing to answer questions?

But, in the spirit of 'balance', I just wonder if it might not be a tad more reflective of the situation(s) (literal and figurative) as follows....

'extreme pessimist': the latest science shows blue skies will turn green unless man stops turning it that way

'extreme optimist' that many 'extreme pessimists' like teasing... and deserve to be: No it's not

'Still neutral': You're right, but I'm unsure how much man really is involved to the level demanded and need to be convinced more before committing the whole farm to serve 'solving' things in the rather selective ways advocated by some.

'Some pessimists' (to any not conforming) : the latest science shows blue skies will turn green unless man stops turning it that way, and by even having doubts you are not with us, and thus need to be shut up or dealt with.

...etc...

Anyone noticed some folk (if from all various 'corners') see things only their way and will not even grant the possibility that there is another view that at the very least deserves to be explored and/or heard?

'If only God the gift hae gae us, to see ourselves as others see us'

Let the bombardments recommence (with, I suspect, the odd frag grenade arriving in my shell hole from various trenches)!

My reply was mainly prompted by this post rather twisting the argument to suit from the off. There was a status quo which has been challenged for change by some who have taken a very absolutist view. Many, myself included, are not comfortable with this, or the methods chosen thus far. Especially to find myself targeted as a 'denier', which makes me feel 'resistant' to this grouping holding sway. I hope my innocent suggestion will be appreciated for laying that conceit bare.

I also stand ready to be accused of being in the pay of someone or other, or at least in league. Which is kinda funny as the ones throwing such accusations around seem to be mostly from the crew cheerfully suggesting they all meet back in the forum they have created to deal with 'wrong thinking folk'.

QUOTE OF THE DAY - sticks and stones

Feeling a bit battered.

But have to get used to it. Being short and half-Scots means that if I don't agree with something, I am usually moved to say so.

I am just surprised at how many seem to see the only way to 'win' an argument is to take the most extreme position... and then stay there no matter what.

"The complete absence of doubt makes for reassuringly impressive armour in the cut and thrust of debate. That is, until an opponent exposes even the merest chink in it."

Perhaps the problem is more that such folk are more interesting in not just 'winning arguments' but totally dominating them over getting stuff done and/or moving on.

I would leave them to it, but these guys to seem to have a stranglehold on the narrative and seem to be proving a real barrier to progress.

If the public gets its head around positive, proactive green initiatives that do not pose significant impositions but do save planet and pocket, then the opportunity exists to move them on, through honest explanation and persuasion, to further measures as they become clear and present as 'dangers' if not addressed.

But using absolutist language to justify either not doing a thing or throwing everything including the kitchen sink down a enviROI-free green hole will not work for me from either 'side', and I will feel obliged to speak out when total commitment to one or other is demanded with no allowance for rational doubts.

Facts and links, makes me thinks, but slurs seldom sway me

I like to think of myself as a sifter.

There is no way I'd claim to be totally on the fence, every time, on every issue, but I do try and see all sides, and then be open to evolve my views as new facts, and circumstances, and arguments come to light.

Hence I cast far and wide for information and, often, opinion. But I do err on proven fact more.

So one area I tend to lurk rather than pitch in on is the absolutism of 'climate change', especially in the anthropomorphic form, as here really it has been settled. Unfortunately, it's by two extreme sets of views so far apart they can't (or won't) even acknowledge each other, yet who seem to think shouting at the top of their voices in their own crowd little padded cells will somehow make a difference.

However, when facts that are verifiable and do seem pertinent get bandied about, I do take notice.

As I did this, but knowing some background, I passed.

A triumph for man, a disaster for mankind

However it has returned via a few blogs.

And if there is one thing that pushes all the wrong buttons, especially in debate, is resorting to ad homs and, especially the term 'you people'; two words which have single-handedly managed to really tax my ability not to side with whoever is not this person, irrespective of the content of their arguments rather than their tone.

Deniers Ahoy!
An article that mentions climate change is published: the deniers slither out from under their rocks to deny reality.
Really, you people should start ordaining ministers. You already have a religion.

Anything that uses the immortal words 'you people' rather damns itself already, especially when also a tad shy on anything substantive as well. Hence the attempted invocation of religion as a pejorative being a tad ironic.

What I see is a piece of in theory objective, balanced and well-researched professional reporting being challenged and, it seems with a fair amount of well-sourced contrary data and argued opinion.

So far, by way of counter, we have only one reasoned (and appreciated) supportive contribution... and a lot of heat at the expense of light.

Which is not a great way to convince those who don't happen to think they fall under the term 'you people' but have an active interest in this topic.

An apt metaphor for much of my message vs. messenger thinking of late.

But not a good one, sadly.