Sorry State

That 'state' can apply to much.

'Of affairs'. 'Of reporting'. 'Of state broadcasting standards'. 'Of draconian censorship'

The other day I found myself perturbed by the PRasNews reporting of a story I was being subjected to, pretty much across the board, but extensively on the BBC.

What irked was that, during the morning news, they were corrected on a less than accurate claim. Which was jokingly acknowledged, but not acted upon.

So I wrote the following commentary on two of the BBC's main blogs.

Both were rejected for 'defamation'. Other than holding up to ridicule journalistic standards these days, I am stumped as to where it was.

Yesterday morning I was intrigued by a 'report' on BBC Breakfast News regarding the proposed Nissan leaf factory.

The claim made was that it was going to be 'zero emission'. In a subsequent slot it was bashfully conceded that, as the consequence of 'an email', this might be hard to substantiate. Sadly, subsequent BBC 'reports' throughout the day failed to accommodate this input.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8573724.stm

'Nissan said the Leaf hatchback would be the world's first affordable, mass-produced, zero-emission car.'

'Nissan said', indeed? We are now in an era of PR as news, it seems. Or, at the very least, PR untroubled by much in the way of follow-up.

At least we get something more accurate here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8573737.stm

'But as policy makers will get jobs and emission reductions in return, this may well prove to be money well spent.'

Well, it is 'good' news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/chrisjackson/2010/03/we_do_cover_the_good_news.html

Thing is, is it news in a form that adequately outlines the issues. There seems to be no doubt that the economic story is good, but what about the much touted environmental complement?

'The Japanese carmaker said today the Leaf will be the world's first mass-produced zero-emission car.'

I have seen that a lot in print and heard it broadcast.

Until the generation of 'leccy is properly sorted to a decent enviROI, it might be worth popping in the caveat that this is possibly true at point of running, but the exhaust pipe still exists, just in another place.

And no matter what, short of pixie dust, it will have a GHG consequence even after ignoring manufacture.

But the BBC is in good company. Spot the similarities, so far:

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/nissan-set-to-manufacture-all-electric-car-in-uk/1001427.article

http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=17809&src=tw

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7469020/Nissan-to-build-electric-car-in-Britain.html

http://www.24dash.com/news/Local_Government/2010-03-18-Nissan-to-build-new-electric-car-in-Sunderland

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Nissan-Leaf-Electric-Car-Will-Be-Built-In-Sunderland-The-Firm-Confirms-After-Sky-Breaks-The-News/Article/201003315576005?f=rss

I note most have that caveat that Nissan 'say'. Hardly in-depth reporting at its best, though, is it?

Look, this could well be a good thing, economically and environmentally, but after Mr. Miliband's recent little outing on climate claims (But his party is obviously as green as it gets, so: @EdMilibandMP Tory silence on climate change and on energy deafening … co-sign my letter to Cameron http://bit.ly/c2iw26 *, if you think Ms. Lucas' thoughts to be inaccurate: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/03/how-green-is-labour ), trotting out a day later anything via Peter Mandelson as gospel 'green is good no matter what' hardly seems to be the best journalistic route to credibility and public confidence in professional objectivity either.

I will seek clarification, for all the good it will do me.

* in my original posting one digit was dropped. But as the BBC has a 'broken URL' facility this could not be the reason.

The value of that cranked eyebrow

Been a bit quiet here of late.

More than I'd like.

It's just that, on top of the day job, I have been trying to stay on top of some rather hairy bits and bobs swirling around the blogosphere regarding the science of climate change.

And it's still swirling, at least in some quarters.

Which makes a little episode I was involved in today all the more pertinent.

From this blog:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2009/11/a_guide_to_making_your_fortune.html#comments

It's all up there (for now... excuse me if I have some concerns about stealth editing from on high in certain quarters) so I'll just past the last one:

Further to my last post, I have now heard again from the BBC, and as it is not fully referred to in the note above, feel the explanation is worth sharing:

We owe you an apology.

The post as originally published did indeed contain a mistake, which was
corrected on Sunday morning.

We have now published an update to the blog, which makes this clear.

The reason we confidently informed you that no amendments had been made
to the blog was that we believed only one person on duty on Sunday had
the privileges required to make changes to Justin Rowlatt's blog - and
that person made no changes the copy. We have since discovered that
there was another person on duty with the ability to change the blog,
and this person made the change referred to in the blog comments.

Apologies again for getting it wrong in our first reply to your
complaint.

To which I have replied:

But I think you may owe the guy who spotted it more of one, and thanks for catching it. Which kind makes the general point I was making about a policy of flagging changes even more pertinent.

Order, for now, one trusts, is restored. But it does show the value of checking, and persistence. On top of not being above a cranked eyebrow when things do not seem to be adding up.

Indeed.

Distract and rule

And rule seems to mean licence to gouge without check or balance.

Plus a few worrying stirrings on democratic process and freedom of speech. From the top, plus some less exalted, but oddly on message sources.

As it is still relatively small, usually civilised and may get read by the powers that be, I still invest in the Newsnight blogs (some BBC ones, like Richard Black's, are now beyond parody, as are most via such as the Guardian, which is a pity as they seem to wield influence out of all proportion to their readership numbers).

My big issue, as we barrel up to Copenhagen, is not so much whether there are climatic issues happening (though pertinet), but what the enviROI of proposed impositions being rushed through actually represent. Sensible, tangible global GHG curbs are one thing; giving every lobby-funded chump with a box-ticking wheeze the keys to the exchequer for a comms budget quite another.

I have thrown my hat into the ring on a few occasions in the last 24 hrs. A sampling:

Guardian - Should climate deniers be allowed to speak on the Today programme?

The exclusion of the barking to the biased from 'the oxygen of publicity' would be interesting, especially from entities that are happy to allow even terrorists to make their case. The trick seems to be inviting the right kind of 'unbalanced' individual on just enough to show 'balance', bit still follow agenda whilst not putting the glee club offside.

BBC - The Editors: A balanced approach to climate change

From the title on it tends to go downhill

BBC - Newsnight Thursday

BBC - Ethical Man Blog

And I fear I am not alone in my concerns about the trend

Iain Dale's Diary: Climate Change Poll: Britons Are Unconvinced

There also seems to be this odd notion that it is a wing' thing. For the life of me I cannot fathom how or why. Except where it comes to relative comfort with state, and state media levels of control.

On balance, probably best left without comment

Exaggerated claims undermine drive to cut emissions, scientists warn

Don't get mad; get engaging

Found out about this:

BBC SCIENCE LOOKS FOR FRESH IDEAS!

Now in the process if seeing if I... we... 'qualify'.

Might be a journey to be followed.

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'.

One swallow does not a summer make

... and I have managed to become the anti-christ of two extremes of the 'climate' debate.

Simultaneously!

I could see where this was going...

The BBC’s amazing U-turn on climate change

...and decided to pitch in and make a case for the middle ground (whilst trying to point out to the extremes that the whole issue is highly complex and waaay above petty tribal tallies... such as trying to claim a single BBC report is a 'U-turn'*) but also firmly staking out how I think it is too important to be left any more to the various protagonists who have pitched in so far.

Of course it is but a small aspect of a very complex overall debate.

However, it comes at a point when public trust is being demanded from some quarters that have less than stellar records in this regard, in the run up to some fairly honking great decisions with some hefty, long term price tags attached.

I personally believe the climate is changing, and for the worse, and that ‘we’ sure as heck are not helping so it’s well worth proceeding with caution and mitigating sensibly wherever and whenever we can.

Just as the penned words of one media employee mean diddly squat to the totality, what I write here is NOT support for the ‘all is fine’ brigade to keep on as they have, but I fully concede that a few rather high profile, possibly well-meaning eco types have tried to have their cake and eat it, and it’s gone off.

We need new advocates. But seeing how comfortable most of the ‘green elite’ have become, I am not hopeful.

Because I believe, to date, the communication of the issues to the public (who are key) have been totally mismanaged by usually self-selected cabals in support of often unelected but usually totally inept / scientifically -ignorant / lobbyphilic / target-centric complementary boxtickocracies in the politico / activist / quango / media establishment who can come up with such as this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6867046.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=1515793

‘Climate change sceptics are to be targeted in a hard-hitting [£6M - that would buy a lot of winter insulation, just as $35M from some other awareness-addicted clowns would buy a few water wells http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8300374.stm ] government advertising campaign that will be the first to state unequivocally that Man is causing global warming and endangering life on Earth.

If the Copenhagen missions from other countries are guided by equal groupings, then the planet is well and truly stuffed.

You persuade through the power of your argument and being honest, un-hypocritical and clear with your audience. The powers that be are now highly compromised in this regard, having been mostly addicted to policies of fine, frighten, guilt and threat too often in pursuit of power and control over legitimate issues of concern that do need addressing. And have been waaaay too cavalier in boosting anything that served their causes. Especially whilst conveniently ignoring a bunch of other stuff which was either too hard or didn’t involve a tariff or taxable offset.

http://www.panda.org/wwf_news/news/?uNewsID=176141

http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2009/10/11/how-much-rainforest-is-destroyed-each-day/

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/10/european-union-corrupt-african-governments-block-stronger-redd-scheme.php?dcitc=th_rss

And now it’s all coming back to bite ‘em on the tush they’ll be screaming ist/zi/inger like Milliband. D when he doesn’t get the pudding he wanted at his birthday party.
I want a better planet for my kids, but I am not prepared to consign them to living it in a small box eating Soylent Green and not going anywhere. Because all that mindset buys is a bit more time.

We need better, more creative minds on this.

All the current batch have managed to do is to make my job a ton more difficult, as I spend all my waking hours DOING stuff on ways to reduce waste and improve efficiencies.

It’s saving planet AND pocket. But even with those clear plusses the audience needs to feel the effort is worth it. Stuff like this either confuses them or puts them off, and gets the door slammed in my face, and those like me.

I can already feel the ‘traitor to the cause’ knives sharpening, but crushing other views has backfired at near every turn, and I think, for the sake of my kids, to save the tree we need to cut out the dead wood and start again.

Heaven knows how, but the alternative status quo under the current regimes is a dead-end creek that stinks.

It got noticed, but not always in a good way:( So I hope this comes across as suitably firm in rejection of partisan demands, but fair:

I have a a dream, and that is meeting the Marketing Director Kellogg’s to pitch my idea for making all their cereal packs reusable.

And I’ll kick off by saying ‘It would all just be junk but for that extra Special K’

That way everyone involved (brand, customer and me) can make money and help the future.
I prefer to go for incentive and reward. Seems to be more reliable.

If you’d like to debate any points I’m making I’m cool. But if it’s playing with names and my calling… not so much.

Just off a BBC post board where some climate change ‘enthusiasts’ (hard to get a snappy descriptor that is accurate and/or not a silly pejorative) reckon those who don’t follow their ‘way’ blindly need to be jailed.

It gets heated. And it seems like too many prefer that to illumination.

Not interested.

Ah well, off now to visit Mum in her home to tell her all we have done this week with Junkk and are going to DO next. Peace will reign. Briefly.

Nowt like being an equal opportunity offender.

*Telegraph

One swallow does not a summer make.

So I do wonder if it is fair, or accurate, to totally project the reporting of but one employee onto the ‘views’ of a corporation, not that ‘they’ should have ‘views’ one way or t’other in the first place. part of the problem, I suspect.

As one interested, I am not clear as to Mr. Hudson’s status, at least as ‘its’ climate change correspondent.

There are surely others in the ‘reporting/corresponding/editing mix (Harrabin, Black, etc), so do they enjoy other, semantically different and hence significant titles, and no specific brief on this odd, rather hard to pin-down entity… climate change?

There is however significance to be sure to be read into the fact that this solo chap’s piece has been seen to stray from… well… best not to get into that.

I sense others have the time and energy to square off on the consequences in days to come.

Addendum: Yet more form the funny farm. There really seems a need on the parst of soem that you offer total fealty to their respective religions. Spooky.

In this day and age, is having your own mind so scary to some?

Still with worrying about the who and less worried with the what of the discussion, eh?
Oddly, just like that other interesting bunch over at Richard Black's (another BBC green/eco climate/whatever reporter/correspendent/editor/whatever (I am sure the difference matters... to someone) who seem so emboldened with the... ahem.. 'success' of a certain Ms. Abbess with Roger Harrabin (another BBC, etc) they seem to figure they, and only they are 'the way', and any dissent is to be dealt with harshly.

I tend to follow a less certain, less dogmatic line. And in a sad era of a need to belong to a tribe, it's my own.

The extra feedback JustinXS and geofftheref on the main protagonist is appreciated and encouraging. I have long had more than a concern that events were being interpreted, narratives enhanced and represenations made fair by folk whose popular reach was not quite matched by their qualifications in matters of scientific investigation and explanation. Mr. Hudson seems a rare, and most welcome exception to the 'rule'. Still just 'a' bloke, mind.

Can't speak for t'other (seems very nice) fellow I seem to be associated with coincidentally on the basis of no more than names with two k's, but since you asked so nicely... oh.. you didn't.
So, sorry, cannot find it in me to oblige:)

It's kind of weird to find myself as an equal opportunity 'offender', as by my stance I seem to have incurred the attention, and ire, of both climate optimists AND pessimists (the best non-judgmental descriptor I can muster for the two bookend camps for whom 'you are either with us or against us' seem shared mantras) simultaneously.

Which is quite a feat, if one thinks about it.

QUOTE OF THE DAY - And proud of it

Just heard on SKY News*

Guest commentator: "I'm afraid I don't get science"

Anchor: "Yes, well, I guess that is why we became journalists"

Ne'er a truer word. Sadly.

*Discussing 'elfinsaftee removing yet more experimentation opportunities to inspire students, this time in Chemistry.

Upon reflection

I crank an eyebrow...

Obama's climate guru: Paint your roof white!

As a potential, simple, 'why not?', as this comes from the new President of the US's Secretary of Energy it has to be given a full and fair hearing.

However, I do wonder whether a full ground back to ground enviROI analysis for such a proposal has been carried out. Ignoring the aesthetics issues, the correct paint needs to be produced, applied... and maintained. Looking at an exterior wall to my property, after just a few years the paint is flaking, being subject to aggressive seasonable weather conditions.

So I, or blokes I hire, are to invest in regular multi-litre purchases of paint (what is its manufacture consequences?) to cover a pretty hefty area, on a regular lifetime basis? That's a lot of raw materials and man-hours.

I am also not so sure how many traditional tile materials will take to retroactive application of an alternative coating for which they were not designed.

What may be more productive is with built-in planning, whereby reflective tiles are manufactured and required to installed with new-builds and renovations.

Equally, as they seem to dig our road up four times a year, maybe the various authorities who get excited about such box-ticking efforts might like to ponder light(er) tarmac too?

And all farmers could be required to grow only year-round, light-foliage crops? Is an all rape diet practical?

Telegraph - Obama's green guru calls for white roofs

Guardian - White roofs and 'cool' cars - Obama's US energy secretary gives Prince Charles tips on tackling climate change

One thing I do note in all this is that the press release on this 'gathering' of 'great minds' has been pretty much run as is by most of the MSM. Not too encouraging on the calibre of science reporting and scrutiny in this arena.

..it's a wonderful town! The battery's flat and the generator's down

Again, I get interested in a bit of science reporting.

Losing sustainability in the urban canyons

I was simply intrigued by the back of envelope calculations, but my enquiry did provoke an interesting response, which at least allowed me the opportunity to expand and clarify (plus indulge in a little blogger teasing:)....

Just looking at the nice picture at the top, I merely wonder what the consequences might be as the sun moves and certain areas end up in the shade of various tall structures around and abounding. At least in the original piece there was a caveat on the wind contribution, though again I have to wonder to what extent there may be problems from the wind patterns around such urban canyons. I am sure if Mr. Cameron had a penthouse overlooking Central Park we may have some better idea. So no matter what people can and then decide to do, even en masse, I'd still be keen to know what the realistic generation capacities might be, bearing in mind the ambient climatic and architectural conditions, from someone who might know. I am still hoping in matters of renewable energy deliverables, historical data and professional experience and calculations can get pretty close to a reasonable estimate. Perhaps a tad closer than the current rough calculations? This indeed may be of value to the journalists from Bulgaria, India, Kenya and Peru, and the numerous interest groups represented at the meeting, who I am sure have flown in from far and wide to appreciate all the facts about what causes climate change... and possible high enviROI mitigations, of course. Though some terribly reasonable optimistic level lampooners may still prefer to stick a finger up in the air. To measure, of course.

After this, it kind of fell apart on the moderation, which seems to be almost inevitable.

So my questions on the science get buried under stupid finger pointing. Again. Nice one, Aunty.

Would you like ice with that?

Actually, it's more about the business model for Junkk's survival.

News pay walls? Consumer says no

But I did see an opening for some input on the calibre of science reporting.

As one with a blog that sifts a lot of 'good enough', if often wildly disparate 'free' in a niche area (green issues) to try and get to something approaching objective fact in matters scientific, and yet more reasonable commentary via subjective analysis that is clear of overt agendas, I'd say amen to most of that.

However, looking at this paper's own coverage on some plucky types' hike in the chilly wastes dipping rulers in the water, and comparing it with other reports, it is often not very easy.

BBC - Ice sheet melt threat reassessed

BBC - Relief as Arctic quest concludes - two aircraft landed on the floating Arctic ice to collect Pen Hadow, Ann Daniels and Martin Hartley.

Telegraph - Global warming explorers in Arctic get nasty shock: polar ice caps blooming freezing

BBC - The Catlin Arctic Survey: daring, yes, but is the science any good?

Indy - Melting ice could cause gravity shift - My favourite word, 'could', sets the tone

Gaurdian - NEW - Arctic explorers end mission to survey sea ice

Still grabbing headlines

I don't mean to tease (well...) but often Aunty doesn't seem to do irony.

Newsnight

It's looking like the Obama Administration is finding out that real life is not like a Disney Movie.

And that redirecting a pendulum that has probably swung too far one way is like changing the course of an oil tanker (how apt) and might take time and a bit more subtlety than trying to whack it with a mallet in the other direction, from foreign affairs to climate.

Speaking of the latter, I am glad our new International (I'm guessing Global has unfortunate connotations) Ethical Person has flown back out West again to cover what those on the ground there already could not, with all those contacts he built up before, and expertise in the field.

At least he managed to find this pre-Copenhagen, Kyoto's end conference that President O did not attend, but Mrs. Clinton did. As it wasn't linked above here I tried the BBC search (ever the optimist) first, and then even Google let me down. Couldn't catch the title: 'Major Economic Forum'?

Then over to Congress for testimony from such as a non-cutesy Mr. Gore. Speaking of the dangers in dealing in absolutes, I think I heard him say that 'man-made global warming pollution causes global warming'. Non negotiable. Now, I had thought the debate had moved to climate change, and for some even newer incarnations, but it seems a tough sell to not even concede that man's contribution may well be significant and worth addressing, but possibly not total in the natural scheme of things.

Anyway, in the spirit of sensible enviROI efforts back home, I have just had a DEFRA PR headed '£11m to protect our seas from climate change '. Actually the headline does not accurately the content of the release (what does these days?), but the words 'drop in the ocean' still spring to mind.

Meanwhile, on the perpetual motion front...

Water-fuel car unveiled in Japan

I can see that the car can be powered by energy from burning hydrogen generated by splitting water. Nifty.

What is not so clear from any text or video is what powers the 'energy generator' that produces the hydrogen to run the car.

It suspect that still may require some 'external input'.

Not that the reporter seemed concerned. Soon to be all round the MSM, equally uncritically, no doubt.

Oh, the grand old Duke of York...

And when it was up it was up, and when it was down it was down...

Oceans are 'soaking up less CO2'

'Coral lab' offers acidity insight

There seems to be one constant, and that's the ability of environmental reporters to fly nice places and lounge around posting whatever latest wheeze is in the wind.

Not sure it's doing much for my understanding of climate, or my desire to cut back whilst they carry on their vital works.

Message and messengers

Or, equally, another from 'not all that is green can be viewed in black and white'.

The breaking news the BBC wouldn't tell

I do confess that I am finding science, and logic, take rather lower fiddle ranks to agenda and ratings-driven hype.

By any measure I would rather this job was done in an accredited yard for good money, rather than by a bunch of kids cheap on a distant beach.

As to this... 'In 2004 Liam Sheahan of Ready Creek, Victoria, famously lost $100,000 when he was prosecuted for felling 247 trees to protect his property. Last week his house was the only one in the area left standing.' Head-shaking is not enough. I guess he got a form of refund in that he still has a home. In this era of sorry folk left right and centre, I'm betting even an apology will be hard to screw out of those responsible.

In the frame of mind to wonder what else I am told, or not, just watching the Breakfast News, this cranked an eyebrow:

BBC - Global warming 'underestimated'

I dread to think what lies behind such stuff any more (This is 'a' scientist, and a few other blogs I read have pointed out that his area of expertise is not really in this area, yet I am sure he was introduced as 'a leading climate change expert'). Especially as, irony-free, it was followed by this spot, with the teleprompter readers and their guest pretty much agreeing it was awful, and people better fly now or lose out:

BBC - Flyers face losing their Airmiles

And in closing, here's one from the other day, just to put what the world faces in some kind of context:

Telegraph - China's rescue plan a load of spin?

Addendum:

The Register - Thermageddon, the BBC and a giant snake

Addendum :

Guardian - Scientists must rein in misleading climate change claims - Read beyond the headline (which rather neatly makes a point in its framing). Indeed, read beyond the article. Woah! I'm glad I just try and help reduce waste.

Guardian - The tropics on fire: scientist's grim vision of global warming - Same paper; same day.

We do science, we do

As an ex-scientist/engineer I have a firm belief in the value of this country's support of same.

Hence I was attracted to this article in the Newsnight blog:

Restoring science to its rightful place

Sadly, as the comments in reply (the first is a doozy, especially the end piece. I speak as one trying to forge a commercial model new media entity dealing in the environment, and one day found myself competing with BBC Green) would suggest, it has been found rather wanting.

Science deals in fact, as does... should... reporting. It is hard not to feel this piece was more opinion dressed up. And I do wonder how appropriate it is for a 'reporter' for the BBC to be quite so definitive in her critiques on an outgoing administration when much is still unknown. The optimism for an agent of 'change', whatever that is, is perhaps understandable given the degree of uncritical analysis of the new President's plans to date, but surely should be couched in terms, dare I say science-based ones, that accept it's hard to predict based on what we don't yet know.

Shame the vast majority subjected to the broadcast are unlikely to be exposed to such worthy and relevant debate to appreciate the critical underpinnings of 'science', and not the fluffy, agenda-driven versions too often trotted out by our national broadcaster and its often less than qualified, or if so (Ms. Watts' resume is a lot more relevant than most), barely competent and/or objective cabal of 'analysts'.

I happen to think there is much worth considering seriously in the environmental arena, but as a fact-based environmentalist shudder at each grotesque, rushed-out bit of spin from the BBC that seems designed to push an 'ideal' (at least in their eyes), but when found wanting simply sets back the worthy, public-influencing, patient, test and confirm methodologies that can lead to genuine insights we can act on with confidence.

Harmless Sky - BBC Newsnight - Warming up President Obama’s inaugural speech? - Hmnn

The Newsnight editor has now responded:

Hello All,

Re the opening of Susan's piece. We did edit sections of the speech to reflect the elements in it that referred to Science. The aim was to give people an impression or montage of what Obama said about science in his inauguration speech. This was signposted to audiences with fades between each point. It in no way altered the meaning or misrepresented what the
President was saying. You can look for yourself above.

Apologies for not responding sooner. I thought I had. BBC Editors find this blogging software frustrating at times too.

Peter Rippon
Editor, Newsnight

I am afraid I found his reply wanting:

Hello back. Thank you for at last replying, on behalf of Ms. Watts and all involved in this. And the apology... if only for the delay in reply. I can see how, being the editor of a news programme caught in a sticky situation brought to one's attention in places, such as your own blog, one could forget doing so before now. I wonder what aspect of the blogging software let you down? It seems to have been working fine for quite a while now (or was your first effort 'moderated', which I agree can be 'frustrating'?).

It's a pity how often a BBC reply can often seem more like bringing in some Kimberly diamond miners when it comes to digging a deeper hole.

I don't propose to address the 'techniques' and what they were intended to facilitate, as others have clearly explained how well it went down. Nor do I intend to get into any discussion of climate, 'optimist' or 'pessimist', save to say as one environmentally concerned erring on caution, 'helping the cause along' by rigging things makes me groan as it makes my efforts at factual persuasion all the harder.

However, I do now unfortunately have yet more words and phrases to add to along, growing and rather ignoble list of 'journalistic'/reportage'/'editorial' doublespeak being used in weak post justification, that does the cause of conveying objective news little credit.

So to such as 'interpreting events' I can now, sadly, add...

'... reflect the elements...'

'... give people an impression or montage of what [was] said... about [topic]..]

' This was signposted...'

The first two seem barely more than excuses for changing things to suit. The third simply a weasel for very stealthily enabling/excusing very stealthy editing.

Sorry, not convinced, and it would seem I am not alone. Nil points.

Gaurdian - Newsnight in fakery row over Obama report - The quantity, and quality of the replies show a worrying inisght into the midsets at play.

Telegraph - BBC accused of fakery over Barack Obama inauguration speech

Telegraph - Obama can afford to lay off press officers now the BBC is working for him free of charge

Making a splash

This is not so much about the environment, but about the state of science and its reporting.

Last night I watched a doco on a tsunami that was supposed to have happened in the Cro-Magnon era of human existence in the Mediteranean.

Seems a slab of Etna on Sciliy may have slid down and sent out a wave a 100' high that washed the East shores clear.

And I recall a similar recent progamme about the Caanry Islands whereby the US eastern seaboard is soon to be wiped out.

Now, I am all for awarness and preparation, but I do rather wonder what, other than getting some worried, such as the latter really achieves.

But I also wonder about the science. In both shows, the most telling demo is when a slab of material is rushed down a slope in a lab to impact a model of a water feature. Sure enough, by the end a dirty great wave was impacting the other end.

Thing is, whilst accpeting the sheer power of the forces, but I do have to wonder about the relative sizes we're talking about here. A small section of an island in an entire ocean does not seem comparable. Nor does the 'route' being a narrow channel constrained by perspex. The energy disapation in a radial manner over tens of thousands of square miles would surely absorb a heck of a lot?

However, when an entire undersea shelf drop/rise over multiple miles takes place, as it did with the Boxing Day tragedy, that is a different kettle of fish.