The issue.. as some would have it?

Just heard on the BBC as the talking head reads out what he's told to ask Prof. Sir David King: 'the issue is that a large number of people are saying there is nothing to be concerned about'.

Is this true?

Or is this how the government and its media shills would wish to see 'the debate' framed?

Anyone who thinks there are no issues of concern regarding PMWNCC is a) not being too rational and b) in a very small minority. Hence why play that up?

My concern, and I suspect that of others, is that 'climate' gets used as an excuse by already mediocre minds to try and compensate for fiscal failures elsewhere that will have zero or, worse, negative enviROI impacts on my kids' futures.

I smell straw men, and the media using them to frame...more like steer the issues stinks.

At least the talking head raised the contradictory point of Ed. Miliband shrieking about reductions whilst the government he is part of is advocating a 3-fold increase in air travel.

Addendum:

My first foray into how the print media complement the narrative:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/we-wont-let-sceptics-hijack-climate-talks-1836029.html

Good to have standards. Not to have them as doubles

But this is an MSM that seems to see the US EPA and its timely actions as somehow unconnected with media management in a new era of command and control by big government.

And is one that also doesn't 'do' irony.

At least, watching today's broadcast news as I now catch up on the print.

Dancing to the tune of PROs of your mates and issuing news by press release does the BBC (or any medium) little credit. Especially when it is contradictory.

You either think greenhouse gasses are a here and now issue, or you don't.

Stick Ed Miliband and Richard Branson up together on this and I think most environmental correspondents' brains would freeze as anything either comes out with gets shared with zero critical thinking attached by our star-truck, government-slavish media.

Ponderings

Don't recall signing up, but I thought this that just came in was interesting:

WHY WE STILL DON’T BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE

What I liked was the relatively measured way it was argued.

Having shared it, I'll still keep quiet on the bits I agreed with, and, possibly, do not.

Stupid is as Stupid does

I am going to see the Age of Stupid.

I am going to do so because I have heard about it, it sounds interesting, it may be worth a gander and I'll learn something.

The producers must be thrilled.

However, they might not be so pleased that I am going with an eyebrow now cranked, and not in a good way. And it's their fault.

The rage of stupid

This bit, especially, did not help: the site's managers are taking no chances. Their comment box carries a legend that somewhat undermines this apparently glowing feedback. It reads: "Any comments from climate deniers/sceptics will be deleted."..the site's managers are taking no chances. "

That smacks of a slight lack of confidence from the off, and also suggests that balance may not be uppermost. Which means the science I see may not be the science there is.

You know, I may wait for a few more reviews where all 'sides' are allowed to comment free of censorship/agenda/narrative enhancing, etc, and then decide whether I'll go.

Now, was/is that the intention?

Coulda, shoulda, woulda...

There are many, complex matters of climatic concern worth taking seriously...

Time to change 'climate change'

My point has, is and will be that such as this is not, IMHO, exactly helping that to happen.

I think I gave up after the nth 'could' or 'might'. Whilst at least honest qualifiers, they were usually qualifying an extreme end.

A point rather picked up upon. And it wasn't until almost the end of the first page (not really worth wading through t'other 6...so far) that the first 'supportive' comment was made, rather ironically ignoring the author and referring to the 'deniers' being out in force. Hardly the most original, or cogent rebuttal that could be made.

I await with interest, and a bit of a sigh, 'climate breakdowners' being deemed the next pejorative stick to bash others with in the ongoing war of words. FWIW, as a communications professional, I'd say it's a move away from the evident main aim. In all this the anthropomorphic aspect seems to have been dropped, which is pretty key, plus of course the possible contribution of nature to man's pollutants as well. Maybe 'nature firsters'?

A bit like when I see Dear Leader 'representing' the UK, much as I believe in my cause, with such as this I sometimes have this guilty desire to be on another side. At least the arguments are often articulated a lot better, and with more humour.

What does cranking an eyebrow make me?

The climate change conference for deniers

'Whether you call them climate change deniers or skeptics'

Might I suggest one step might be for 'you' not to call 'them' either? I tend to view anything in the reportage field that starts on these bases to be about as much use as stuff that kicks of with 'Treehuggers' or "Hair shirts'. It all gets a bit tribal otherwise.

Perhaps great for those who like pointless spats and endless arguments, but usually not so helpful to sensible discussion on improving my kids' futures on the planet.

It is also my experience that very few who have those labels appended as a pejorative actually deny or are sceptical that the climate is changing. Most seem to be more interested in why and what might be done about it in a practical as opposed to idealistic sense, which means reserving the right to question certain dogmatically-held, and uncritically supported views.

Which is, IMHO, a tad different.

Are you... a NIMBY?

This has been prompted by a discussion group, in turn prompted by:

Nimbyism is 'hardening' in Britain..

I fear this term is often rather in the same category as a few other, if not pejoratives, but at least intentionally loaded critiques, along with 'denier' or 'treehugger', that do not serve the cause of rational debate very well.

As one who can think if nothing more impressive to look at than a ridge of rotating turbines, I have to accept that there are those who might not.

And if I'm not too bothered one way or t'other as I pass by, it might be worth giving pause to think of those who might have had one view and are now faced with another... daily.

Plus there are other issues to be sensitive to. Those who post here regularly are more informed and qualified than eye to confirm this, but it is my understanding that there is some noise pollution for homes close by. Also that house prices in the immediate area can be unfavourably affected.

These are legitimate concerns. And I sometimes feel those not on the wrong end of such initiatives, whilst be very passionate in defence of the big picture, can also be a tad insensitive in their critiques. And, in so doing, get a few backs up in the process. Which, more often than not, can introduce... 'delays'.

I, for one, rather shudder when it see it wielded, especially when picked up by the MSM on a slow news day.

Addendum:

I got a cheery reply. Now, 'they' have started a competition to find alternatives. Current top pick is 'obfuscators'. Look what I started:(

Here's what I wrote:

I won't be joining in, but those who feel so inspired may get some fodder from this and the comments in response:

Monbiot's royal flush: Top 10 climate change deniers*

I did note one point made that of that list there were some who were there despite not disputing the fact that climate was changing, or even going further, but seemed to have got on the 'wrong side' by having different thoughts on the best way to address the future as a consequence.

So... be careful with those definitions; they can come back on one.

I look forward to to the winning entry.

Have a lovely evening, which it is out of my window. Off down the shed to make some stuff out of some junk with the kids... by way of example.

Peter
Climatically neutral, reduction positive, waste negative, talk-talk dubious, walk-walk advocate

* I was moved, of course, to chip in..

Just wondrin', having read the piece and as many of the replies as I could cope with, if this ad hominem, ''tis/t'isnt spat between a few folk who seem to be making a lot of career headways out of staking claims on the far extremes, and their various entrenched supporters, are actually DOING anything worthwhile to make the future any better for my kids?

From what I have read here... not so much.

Maybe it is better this way. Lord help the future if most I have read actually get in charge of anything based on their ability to persuade and/or lead.

Addendum 2:

Another reply. Slightly less cheery. And one which rather leads me to think that my plea fell on deaf ears. Some views, and the blogs that cater to them, are too entrenched it seems. And so various groups wallow in their group thinking, rejecting and indeed forcing out any views that do not conform to the ones they hold, no matter how sincere or rationally held. Hardly the best way forward IMHO...

I suggest that you look to the Climate progress blog by Joe Romm, particularly at a recent item on anti-science syndrome (ASS), wherein those who are complete deniers are referred to as ASS wholes!

http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/anthony-watts-up-with-that-anti-science-denier-website-weblog-awards/

Now, what's the betting the only reaction we're likely to get/hear about is something equally 'colourful' in return. Ho hum. Whatever happened to addressing the issues and not the person?

Climate change denial adverts

Interesting to note that most of these examples of climate change denial adverts come from the motor industry in one form or another.

My fave is No. 5 - surely someone at EDF (or their ad agency) ought to have recognised the wonderful irony of using an image of the Easter Island statues?

Climate of peers

The climate 'debate' rumbles on... and on.

Thanks to another site I was directed to two areas - one of discussion; one of 'information', I guess, that to me shows just where we are.... just with our national broadcaster.

The climate questionnaire - I really am not sure what to make of this. It is just 'there'. No explanation, or context. What if you keyed in 'climate' in the search and ended up here? Odd. But an interesting set of questions, some of which many within the BBC could ask of themselves. And without default answers in place.

Climate sceptics - I'd say between the original post and the replies you about have it all in a nutshell. Not an exchane I will be getting into a hurry, though.

It has one of my favourite quotes, which I did comment upon before when it was invoked in another piece (I think the Guardian):

'We must also be smarter in the way we interpret the often vociferous views expressed on climate in our vibrant inter-active space. While welcoming a diversity of voices, we must make sure that we do not conflate self-selecting audience responses with a broad audience opinion.'

On the whole the replies to this piece do not seem overly happy with the BBC's reporting and, interestingly, fewer than I expected got involved in 'tis/t'isn't' facts-fisking exchanges. It was more about the way things get reported, which is how the debate should be.

That said, I found a few things troubling. Sorry, but I do see a total presumption that a certain line is the only true one and places any critique as minority or from suspect motives. And that from the way it has been set up it is almost inevitable that those who many not agree with it in totality are therefore not 'us' but 'them'. That is unfair and dangerous.

I also note, with sad inevitability, that when one group do not like the free opinions of others being expressed, much less dominating, the default is to drum up the notion that there is an organised dark campaign at work. To an extent it may be possible that those with passion and/or money can afford and wish to influence such forums, but it was ever thus. And it's open to both sides, editorial/moderation polices permitting.

For a while I have found the terminology worrying often to the point of pejorative... and beyond. Too often I have seen an 'eco-fascist' for a person who thinks flying isn't such a great thing, or 'Big oil funded denier' for another who may not quite see how certain truths are not yet proven. In between are milder, but certainly pigeon-holing versions such as 'treehugger' or 'sceptic', but they are still there to label and mock.

I was wondering what I would call myself, as one who concedes man-worsened climate change as a distinct possibility and hence reason to act in any and all ways possible and practical, but without the dogmatic, absolutist and often censorious zeal of some who require total fealty to their mission - which, sadly, seems to be to prostrate oneself at the altar of man-made global warming and any half-considered knee-jerk that might come up to 'correct' it, first-class, via a conference in Bali and a nice EU subsidy. And the hell with enviROI.

I'm erring on being a 'Climate AQUA'. Always Questioning, Unremittingly Acting.

So sorry. Not the finest hour of our national broadcaster, at least in persuading this licence fee payer they are doing their job and/or are worth the money.