When the back story does matter

Recent events in the world of climate optimism/pessimism have made an already volatile situation rather toxic.

As one who is immersed in it all more than most, and indeed more than might be wise for mental health, I personally feel few on either 'side' comes out of this well, but two posts from Real Climate today do give pause for thought on the processes at work that shape one's views.

First up, there's The “Have you stopped beating your wife yet (yes/no)” questionnaire

I have a definite interest in who is stirring the pot, so this kind of manipulation with a view to the next headline sets up alarm bells. How often does one get the back story in some media more keen on what makes a nifty headline?

I also note that these guys are pretty set on MMGW as a given and I need to respect that, but I have to say the discussion around the Qu2 was almost as convoluted as the question was/is loaded. Sadly I came away still feeling that there are two sets of agendas essentially driving to 'proving' two sets of start points. One could argue it doesn't matter who or what or what balance is causing CC, but in light of the obvious interest groups that exist and how they will pounce on weaknesses in the other 'sides' argument, I still maintain it's best to stick with what cannot be faulted and work away with that. I can live with Man worsened climate change as still a highly motivational rally to STOP MAKING THINGS WORSE.

Next, there's Convenient Untruths

Now this is still highly topical and worthy of analysis, and if nothing else seems to indicate that we, the consumer (and, I guess, blog posters), need to make note of the importance of "quote marks" or, possibly (with my Dell keyboard not working 100% with my Mac), 'quote marks', which can seem to turn meanings through 180, 270 or indeed 360 degrees of interpretation.

I'm sorry, but there is something seriously astray in our communications if it has come to this!

But hey ho, to get to the 'truth', er, "truth" it seems one must acquire the skill sets to read between lines and now above and below them too. And this in matters of law!

Assuming it to be true (and I can't imagine these guys, with their dedication to the professionalism of science would not be), this brought me up short: '...the judge's characterisation of the 9 points is substantially flawed. He appears to have put words in Gore's mouth that would indeed have been wrong had they been said (but they weren't)'. But then I am a tad confused by the word 'appears' in there, which puts us straight back into areas of 'well what is it?' again.

The 9 points are worth viewing, and indeed reviewing as they invite additions, though I still question whether all this still suggests a bit of a bodge job and patch up to bring something to our kids which really didn't seem worth it for the result. At least in light of all the negatives that it attracted. And only an adult scientist with a very rosy view of education could be happy that all this would now be discussed to any degree of satisfaction in a school room. In fact, from chatting with my kids, who get most of their 'news' from snippets on TV or headlines in the newsagents, more of the talk would need to be explaining why AIT is not some daffy treehugger fiction, which it assuredly is not. However, the point is well made by a poster that at least it has all created enough 'awareness' (that word again) to keep the thing top of mind.

However, as seen here, many of the negatives thrown up are possibly the construct of those with an interest (gawd knows what) in suppressing any notion of MMCC, or the preferred semantic distinction (we all have them) that I still adhere to (if only to allow some wiggle room should nature be shown to be having a significant influence no matter what 'we' do) of Man-worsened climate change. It's just such a pity that there is still no objective source I feel I can rely on to give me what I need to arrive at anything like a valid view on it all yet.

But the fact remains that 'we' need to use less and make more of what we have. I just hope those simple facts don't get lost in the wash.... um... spin cycle.

Spinning yarns. Telling tales. Act II

PRE -ADDENDUM by Junkk Male - A view from Dilbert

Further to the previous post and discussion on Al Gore's film and the court case which attempted to prevent it from being shown in schools; this from The Guardian provides some interesting information.

I'll leave it for you the reader to draw your own conclusions.

This is the slant The Times took yesterday on some of the same information.

Addendum:
Good Lies / Bad Lies - A useful summary from the excellent Brendan O’Neill of Spiked.
‘A good lie will have travelled half way around the world while the truth is putting on her boots.’ (Mark Twain)

Addendum 2 (from Junkk Male) - Climate deniers to send film to British schools - Now, I could say I thought as much, but I won't. I'll just write it. The cause of rational debate is helped how again?

Response (from Dave):
AIT is shown in schools at the instruction of our own government's education department. An extreme right wing group is free to create and send in as much propaganda as it wishes. But it just won't get shown unless otherwise instructed at governmental level.

Addendum 3 (from Dave):
I always like to wait for the views of someone that I respect as a genuine scientist. This from MediaLens is the personal evaluation of Professor John Shepherd of the National Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton, regarding the recent stalking horse, sorry, court case, about showing AIT in schools.

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.

Spinning yarns. Telling tales.

The e-blogosphere, from Newsnight to BBC is Biased, is humming a tad on this: Inconvenient verdict delivered on Gore's climate change film

As stated before, I can't for the life of me figure how it has come to this. The thing is pretty much ancient history anyway, and AG has a new version (with solutions) coming, and there are two others I am aware of (Leonardo di Caprio's and another whose name escapes me) which are also more proactive available.

Bearing in mind this is the Indy I find this rather telling: 'But, in a somewhat more damaging move, the judge forensically examined the documentary's "one-sided" case and found "nine scientific errors" in its content.'

But this is where I get annoyed, not with the 'deniers', but those who keep handing them easy ways to cast doubts: 'Yesterday's ruling will no doubt be greeted with glee among climate-change deniers.' I am seeing it in every post out there. And the other stuff, the actual worrying stuff, gets ignored in the noise.

And in the spirit of 'two wrongs..', I could give a stuff that '...green opponents [how is it so clear cut as all pro vs all no/] have come under similar criticisms over their own claims on the hotly contested issue. '

I just want to know what we know, and no more and no less, and be guided as best I can to do what is best for my kids' futures. The only winners here are those who thrive under a cloud of controversy. And there are a lot of them on both 'sides'.

BBC - Gore climate film's 'nine errors'

'... this controversy could encourage the public to think there was scientific doubt about the facts of climate change.' Ya think?

Guardian - Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge

Newsnight - Wednesday, 10 October, 2007

Having now watched this, I wish politicians of all hues (and a few media types, though JP was a noble exception in referring to 'us', I believe, as 'they', which I presume to be a separate breed of human to those who haunt studios) would resist from telling me what I think when I haven't been asked. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has the rest of the country in any meaningful way.

It makes it very hard to stay objective on what IS happening and gets DONE, and resist reacting and seeking the exact opposite just as payback for the presumption.

Which brings me to the world being consumed in a ball of fire by next Tuesday. Or... not.

The eco-blogosphere is humming a bit on this.

And I really can't for the life of me figure how it has come to this. The piece (as noted) is pretty much ancient history anyway, and AG has a new version (with solutions) coming, and there are two others I am aware of (Leonardo diCaprio's and another whose name escapes me) which are also more proactive available. So what the government was/is doing punting it out anyway escapes me.

Where I do get annoyed in this is with those who keep handing climate optimists easy ways to cast doubts. I am seeing it in every post out there. While the other stuff, the actual for real worrying stuff, gets ignored in the noise.

And in the spirit of 'two wrongs..', I could give a stuff that '...green opponents [how is it so clear cut as all pro vs all no?] have come under similar criticisms over their own claims on the hotly contested issue', as I read by way of a comeback in the paper. It's always extremes.

So we get a guy up against JP, whose job it is to seek weaknesses in argument and tear them apart, and I am left with ' 'bits' of it were... um... wrong, but not wrong'? Do what? On this basis what else could get the green ('scuse pun) light to be aired at school, so long as it comes with a teacher's disclaimer training manual. I know how that is going to go down having run it by my own kids; 'Er, dad, what are you on about???'. I want them educated in more than box-ticking.

And, as an aside, I was not aware that 'we' 'know' that climate change IS man-made. I am passionately committed to practical (a lot in that), effective (even more there) reduction and/or mitigation on an urgent basis, but just on a slightly different one that I, personally, 'believe', which is 'man' and our activities sure may not be helping much.

And if the MMCC absolute does get disproved (which in some other ways I pray it does, though my business plan might need changing a tad once the party starts) or even just further chipped away, it sets back the entreaties of the less dogmatic advocates. Cry wolf, anyone?

Like greenwashing ads, why push the claim to the point that it is shown to be hyped, or worse false, and undo all the other good the brand has been building? I know it can seem so urgent to some (me inc.) that any means necessary can be tempting to take to get the message out, but not if this is the result.

I can only speak personally to say I just want to know what 'we' know now - no more and no less, with all caveats - and to be guided as best I can be to do what is best for my kids' futures.

The only winners here are those who thrive under a cloud of controversy. And there are a lot of them on both 'sides' feeding off this as we speak.

Green cannot be viewed just in black and white.

ADDENDUM

* 33.* Baz wrote:

Thank you for this. As one interested but who cannot face the prospect of wading through mammoth reports I can't complain so much if I rely on those who do if the information I get is 'selective'.

I have been convinced enough by what I have been served up to concede that there is the distinct possibility of Man-worsened Climate Change, and even if this ends up being proven in error there seems no great harm in a cautious approach to our race's activities from now on. In any case, moderation, cutting down/out pollution and prevention of waste are no bad things to practice simply in financial terms.

Semantically, do I read this as saying it's a given that climate change in human-induced? You obviously did. I could see it more as looking at 'whether', which seems valid.

That said, I have heard the BBC's main enviro spokespersons/experts (whose qualifications are?) refer to the 'fact' that climate change is caused by man. Is it?

Because then there is also such as this: "the risk is the public might misunderstand what campaigners are saying with what the scientists are actually finding out."

Quite.

How a headline can mislead

Now when I saw this headline in today's Times - 'U-turn on showing of Al Gore climate change film in school' - I thought, oh, they have stopped schools from showing the film to their pupils, I wonder why.

So I read the article, only to discover that far from not stopping the film being shown, schools have simply been issued with new guidance about how to present the film, because some thought that the film was 'brainwashing' and 'too political'.

Now I'm all in favour of things being balanced, and of all sides and points of view being presented equitably, which the new guidance is supposedly going to assist with; but a headline like that is, to say the least, rather misrepresentative of the underlying story.

I'll bet that sometime before this day is over, someone will tell me that they've stopped showing 'An Inconvenient Truth' in schools; "it's definitely true, I saw it in The Times".

ADDENDUM (From Junkk Male) - I agree on the headline. But still have to wonder about the logic behind it all and how it has been handled, especially with many more up to date accounts soon on offer (on this very blog).

Telegraph - Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' can be shown to schools

BBC - Climate film allowed in schools

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

An interesting point...

... well made in today's Indy letters:

Sir: The Department of Education and Skills, in conjunction with the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs, will this week begin distributing the Al Gore film, An Inconvenient Truth, to all 3,385 secondary schools in England.

According to the DfES, "influencing the opinions of children is crucial to developing a long-term view on the environment among the public" (press release, February 2007). This is an explicit admission by the Government that its intention in circulating the film is to indoctrinate children politically.

Such deliberate political indoctrination of children is contrary to the Education Act 2002, which at section 78 says the school curriculum for maintained schools is to be "balanced and broadly based", and section 79 requires the Secretary of State, local education authorities, governing bodies and headteachers to exercise their functions "with a view to securing that the curriculum for every maintained school satisfies the requirements of section 78".

Political spin is bad enough, but when we start brainwashing our own children we are finished.

I write as one concerned more than many about where we are headed, but beyond the question of legality have to also wonder if this is a bit of indocrination too far.