Wednesday, 21 March, 2007
Yesterday I was listening to the Jeremy Vine show Budget follow-up... and the 'performances' I heard, from both sides of the table, had me wishing for Jeremy Paxman to be in the chair.
Though, to be fair to Mr. Vine, much can be laid at the door of the facile demands of soundbite media, where interviewers get constrained and now savvy politicians can use the ridiculous timeslots to say nothing, not answer or duck and run to best advantage.
In Eric Morley, Miss World style, let me in reverse order dismiss the talentless robots put forward by the Conservatives and Liberals. I think I could have drummed up more coherent counter-argument from my kids' playground. There was such fertile ground for opposition to shine and show government failings and where they would make a difference. Sadly, rehashing outdated (things can change in minutes and you need to move fast to react) spin-meister training may seem like good micro-management, but doesn't do much beyond making them seem like only being worried about being on-script.
But Mr. Brown....
He was allowed to waffle out facts ... over and over and over again... that neither answered the questions nor excused the positions the country finds itself in.
It is a possible failing of our political system that some parties have only 5 years to effect real change, but you work with what you have got.
This... government has had a long time more to do what it said it wished to do. Not only has it either not done it, but in many cases has changed its tune to suit.
In fact the only real achievement, supported by Mr. Brown's own testimony, has been to pour money into black holes, and/or employ legions more people to help gobble this money up to little or no result.
As just one example, to Mr. Vine's challenge that most people, including Doctors, find the NHS to be in a dire state despite the multi-billions lavished upon it, we were treated to a time-consuming rumbled drone of figures and excuses about 'modernisation'. You can't blame pre-1997 any more Mr. Brown!
And whoever thought up the nonsense of consuming precious challenge time with 'listener questions' should be shot. One, isolated, cock-up is legitimately and reasonably dismissed as not something he has heard about, but write in and it will be dealt with. When.. in another ten years?
And thus he managed to tell the interviewer wordlessly that he was busy and had enough and that was that. What a waste of space.
And speaking of waste, well, the environment, which is my core interest, I came back last night to a post on my site from a reader which sums up how green this budget was (noting some other great points above):
"I'd like to share the fantastic increase in the budget for microgeneration grants administered via the Low Carbon Building Fund. From £6Mill to £9Mill - brilliant!... that'll make a massive difference! Here's where it will go - half to employ more administrators and bean counters with gilt-edged pensions and half (I hope!!) to those concerned (albeit well entrenched) consumers who would like to do their bit.
So now the LCBF grants will run out at 11:45 on the morning of the first working day of each month rather than at 10:30? Fat lot that goes towards helping. Uncle Gord might as well have stuck two fingers up to the electorate .... or did I blink and miss him doing just that?"
That's our 2p worth anyway.
Telegraph - Budget has left us no better off say 7 in 10
A letter in the Telegraph:
Sir - Well done, Mr Brown. Yet another nail in the coffin of the British farmer - £400 a year to tax our Land Rover. What a good idea. I'm sure my husband will be delighted when I tell him we are selling the Land Rover to become "greener" and save ourselves £400 a year and suggest he gets around the fields to feed our 400 ewes on his bicycle, or perhaps a Smart car would fit the bill?
Unlike many of the owners of 4x4s, we rely on our Land Rover to get around the farm and for hay deliveries, which is one of the things we do to diversify. Perhaps we should get out of farming altogether, so that we can import all our food, and use lots of planes to get it here. Very green, very environmentally friendly.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Let the flames begin!
Budget 07: mean not green
I have long since ceased to try to understand, let alone believe, and much less be convinced by anything the current crop of politicians and self-appointed green elite 'commentators' have to say about where we've been, are and could/should be going.
As this blog testifies, it has made not one whit of difference to entrenched positions which, by my estimate square up as about the population of tube-proximate, cycling Islingtonistas in the ecofacist pro camp, vs. the rest of the country's Daily Mail/Sun reading (well, you know what I mean) big-oil funded, Ch4 watching (and believing... how dare they) climate deniers... as a 'no' then.
So if, like me, you think there is a smidge of an issue here, and the best way to sort it is by persuasion and willing cooperation of the masses, I'd say we need a new broom pronto to sweep clear the whole sorry 'I care/know better than you lot'... pronto.
IMHO:)
I have long since ceased to try to understand, let alone believe, and much less be convinced by anything the current crop of politicians and self-appointed green elite 'commentators' have to say about where we've been, are and could/should be going.
As this blog testifies, it has made not one whit of difference to entrenched positions which, by my estimate square up as about the population of tube-proximate, cycling Islingtonistas in the ecofacist pro camp, vs. the rest of the country's Daily Mail/Sun reading (well, you know what I mean) big-oil funded, Ch4 watching (and believing... how dare they) climate deniers... as a 'no' then.
So if, like me, you think there is a smidge of an issue here, and the best way to sort it is by persuasion and willing cooperation of the masses, I'd say we need a new broom pronto to sweep clear the whole sorry 'I care/know better than you lot'... pronto.
IMHO:)
I may not agree...
What's the point of Channel 4?
'the propoganda that was The Great Global Warming Swindle.'
In passing, I am presuming that to be a typo (mea cupla, hourly) and not, in fact, a new word meaning it's well proper'.
However, I am very keen to learn more on the outcome of all the serious consequences being threatened here and there - 'Wunsch is reportedly considering [my emphasis - what the heck does that mean?] a complaint to the broadcasting regulator Ofcom' - to justify that rather, shall we say 'one-sided' view above of what was, shall we say, another, if alternative 'one-sided view'.
One man's big oil denier is another's ecofascist 'n all.
Balance, Grasshopper, balance, is how to win minds.
'the propoganda that was The Great Global Warming Swindle.'
In passing, I am presuming that to be a typo (mea cupla, hourly) and not, in fact, a new word meaning it's well proper'.
However, I am very keen to learn more on the outcome of all the serious consequences being threatened here and there - 'Wunsch is reportedly considering [my emphasis - what the heck does that mean?] a complaint to the broadcasting regulator Ofcom' - to justify that rather, shall we say 'one-sided' view above of what was, shall we say, another, if alternative 'one-sided view'.
One man's big oil denier is another's ecofascist 'n all.
Balance, Grasshopper, balance, is how to win minds.
Who does he think the press is working for?
Set information free
It's a very good, more than fair question.
One you could ask one of your colleagues a few pages over who I just took to task on her blog, who seems to think investigations into fraud should cease when they become 'boring'. Sounds like Lord G would agree. Bore it down and bury, hmnn?
Call me old-fashioned, but I like my press feisty, factual, fanatical and fair. And tenacious (no f'in that, sorry).
It's a very good, more than fair question.
One you could ask one of your colleagues a few pages over who I just took to task on her blog, who seems to think investigations into fraud should cease when they become 'boring'. Sounds like Lord G would agree. Bore it down and bury, hmnn?
Call me old-fashioned, but I like my press feisty, factual, fanatical and fair. And tenacious (no f'in that, sorry).
Lions led by donkeys, fed by jackals
Mr Brown’s long fuse
Au contraire. As we were obviously watching another performance entirely.
As I watched BBC's Breakfast's morning cuddlefest analysis, a series of taking heads, whilst happily agreeing that it was a massive nothing at best, and con at worst, all agreed that it was politically 'brilliant'.
When are those who work in Westminster, and those who work at feeding off them, grasp that the rest of the population can figure out that if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck and stinks like a duck, we can probably assess it for the duck it is.
Time to get back to politicians who stand for something more beyond getting into or staying in office, and a complete purge of the whole Pundit Zero class with highly vested interests, and careers, in making it all seem like anything other than another catwalk run by the latest naked emperor.
ps: All that simply means I agree. Chance of showers to come.
Au contraire. As we were obviously watching another performance entirely.
As I watched BBC's Breakfast's morning cuddlefest analysis, a series of taking heads, whilst happily agreeing that it was a massive nothing at best, and con at worst, all agreed that it was politically 'brilliant'.
When are those who work in Westminster, and those who work at feeding off them, grasp that the rest of the population can figure out that if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck and stinks like a duck, we can probably assess it for the duck it is.
Time to get back to politicians who stand for something more beyond getting into or staying in office, and a complete purge of the whole Pundit Zero class with highly vested interests, and careers, in making it all seem like anything other than another catwalk run by the latest naked emperor.
ps: All that simply means I agree. Chance of showers to come.
What a waste
Call for council tax rise - and a charge for emptying your bin
"But Sir Michael said with local government facing huge EU fines for missing waste targets "a charging regime would act as a powerful incentive" on householders to recycle."
No, it may act as a powerful DISINCENTIVE NOT TO, and is certainly passing the burden for meeting administrative targets onto those who are meant to be served. And pay for the 'privilege'.
Another nail in the 'fine first, figure out solutions later' coffin of what's being achieved by 'green' policies we are being subjected to these days.
"But Sir Michael said with local government facing huge EU fines for missing waste targets "a charging regime would act as a powerful incentive" on householders to recycle."
No, it may act as a powerful DISINCENTIVE NOT TO, and is certainly passing the burden for meeting administrative targets onto those who are meant to be served. And pay for the 'privilege'.
Another nail in the 'fine first, figure out solutions later' coffin of what's being achieved by 'green' policies we are being subjected to these days.
Ask. Don't Tell.
I'm on a ro... mission:
Noted that Declan asked the 'enviro question' of the BMI boss regarding the impact of increased flights as a result of new regulations.
And noted that the airline industry takes this issue very seriously (where have we heard that before.. ad nauseam).
But as to the answer that he (the BMI guy) doesn't think it will adversely affect the contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change, [MY QUESTION:] does the BBC think leaving it at that is adequately dealing with this as a major aspect of news issue, on the day the budget is discussed for its green influence?
Noted that Declan asked the 'enviro question' of the BMI boss regarding the impact of increased flights as a result of new regulations.
And noted that the airline industry takes this issue very seriously (where have we heard that before.. ad nauseam).
But as to the answer that he (the BMI guy) doesn't think it will adversely affect the contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change, [MY QUESTION:] does the BBC think leaving it at that is adequately dealing with this as a major aspect of news issue, on the day the budget is discussed for its green influence?
Nice one BIll
I usually lump him in with the blonde as the bouffant, however in the spirit of fair critique as my concern is the lack of fact in news these days:
'I have to give a big up to Bill.
He was the only one who kept trying to point out the facts to what sounded like the most nonsensical Westminster insider hype worship I have ever heard on Mr. Brown's budget, from the Lib Dem spokesperson and Telegraph columnist.
I don't want this country, or its economy, run by people who play silly games and only admire those who do so well at the expense of substance, and certainly not commentated upon by those who have lost touch with how the normal, working person exists and views things'
Let's see if one of those get a mention!
'I have to give a big up to Bill.
He was the only one who kept trying to point out the facts to what sounded like the most nonsensical Westminster insider hype worship I have ever heard on Mr. Brown's budget, from the Lib Dem spokesperson and Telegraph columnist.
I don't want this country, or its economy, run by people who play silly games and only admire those who do so well at the expense of substance, and certainly not commentated upon by those who have lost touch with how the normal, working person exists and views things'
Let's see if one of those get a mention!
Just the facts
My discourse with BBC Breakfast over the standard of their features and reporting continues, as summarised by this, which with luck will speak (write) for itself (I could have added that this black vs. white issue was left unresolved by the blonde and bouffant 'hosts', who just giggled):
I just saw your regular medical feature Doctor directly contradict the BUPA representative.
And he in reply told her she was wrong.
I do trust by the next screening 'we' will know who, if necessary via the moderators.
Otherwise what is the point of such news?
I doubt it will get read out at all, but if it does one can only wonder which sentence they will choose this time to suit their odd notion of truth.
I just saw your regular medical feature Doctor directly contradict the BUPA representative.
And he in reply told her she was wrong.
I do trust by the next screening 'we' will know who, if necessary via the moderators.
Otherwise what is the point of such news?
I doubt it will get read out at all, but if it does one can only wonder which sentence they will choose this time to suit their odd notion of truth.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
The Nelson Touch..
..a patch from a more jaundiced eye?
Brit's Eye View: U.K. climate politics heating up
It is worth remembering that, like many cultures, there are always a few alternative ways something can get taken, depending on the point you are looking from.
In the UK, it often seems there is what happens in the corridors of power and the surrounding London C-zone (in London the C is for congestion charge, but some may say it could also stand for ‘centric’, the way the city’s young, non-parent, tube, bus and flat-road blessed cyclopaths seem to view things) that takes in the media and urban luvvies.... and the rest of the country.
For sure, the environment is BIG. Certainly in government - we just had another budget where they stuck it to those 4x4s again, which will really make a difference to those in the City earning a bazzillion trading carbon credits when it comes to the annual upgrade to a wind-powered Cayenne, but may make it a bit harder in countryside where folk are still running 30 year old Land Rovers. Remind me again, how much of a car’s carbon is in manufacture?
Glad the EU is agreeing to stuff anyway. Well, the leaders are not agreeing to very much they are asking the rest of us to do, if Mr. Baroso's defence of his Touareg is anything to go by. And our dear leader, and equally dear leader of HM’s Opposition seem to have a small problem with the whole not flying thing if it applies to making THEIR lives nicer, easier and/or more profitable. Like the rest of us were doing it, especially on business, because we just love sucking up the bird flu from row 22.
And as to targets, we have enough for even an NRA Glee Club to go ape over. Hitting them... not so good. But we got ‘em. Squillions! And even more folk to assess, measure, interpret, committee, file, report, fine, explain, excuse, fly to Bali to discuss and all round not do very much but add to the demands on the public purse to keep a load of folk in green-gold until Armageddon.
Now I don’t want to get into a ‘Big Oil denier/Eco-Nazi who said what and is funded by whom’ quote-fest, but I would like to know who the ‘most commentators’ were who welcomed this package. ‘Cos I don’t recall it being quite as all round rosy and unequivocal as that. At least outside the C-zone, and even a few media guys from within that seemed a little less than impressed with how recognition of a need ever seems to turn into effective action.
Yes, stuff needs doing. And to ensure it gets done right, what it is needs to be agreed. Sadly, and it pains me to say this, this does necessitate some KPIs, but here is where think-tanks, government, eco-activists, business, the media, the public and real life may start to diverge.
Me, I just want what’s best for my kids and their kids, so all I really care about is the enviROI, the return that the planet gets on any efforts made to reduce man’s impact upon it (if indeed there is any, or whether it is necessary or not to mitigate a possible natural influence... or not). Been there. Got the blog-flames and a nifty hemp T-shirt that says “Make sure your footprint isn’t a CarbCon one’.
Chancellor Gordon Brown, who MAY be Prime Minister from June unless I have missed something, does have a fondness for decrees. Not so popular with the British public though, such things. And as pointed out, there is theory and there is practice, and who is in office and who is not. Plus who has retired with a nice index-linked, gold-plated pension, and who is mopping up afterwards.
Unless I was only reading subversive underground literature, Enviro Minister David Miliband’s floated ideas on personal carbon allowances were more of the lead balloon variety, being meant for no more than a toe dip and not exactly floated very high at all. And the guns seemed pretty well out for it even with the wee outing it did have.
A bit like those punted by David Cameron, the Conservative leader and, possibly, next leader of the land if the current polls are anything to go by. Both see carbon allowances and trading as a wheeze, and it is easy to see how they would appeal to those with mates in London, and being immune from the consequences of their actions ’because they are busy and important’. Just ask how the old road pricing went down. No problem in London. Not so great where folk have 50 mile round trips daily in the provinces.
I am also unclear as to how the science is getting... any clearer. The IPCC report rated two days in the broadsheets and barely got a mention in the tabloids. A few niche TV media had a stab. Then along came the Channel 4 documentary (mentioned in these pages), and fewer people think climate is an issue than did before. And that wasn’t many. Most think it’s a big con to squeeze taxes in the name of green to prop up runaway public spending and ministerial pensions and pointless campaigns from overfunded comms budgets.
If big companies are getting serious, it’s only because they don’t like the look of the fines coming, or see money in the marketing. Major retailers like Tescos are struggling to explain how a wind-turbine on a trial store’s roof makes up for concreting over most of the country with car parks to sell Spanish strawberries in foam packs. Especially as the former will boost profits anyway. Meanwhile Richard Branson is still spinning how sending billionaires up on a column of greenhouse gasses for their own inter-stellar Kodak moment is offset by his air fleet not yet being on biodiesel. And Stuart Rose of M&S has ordered a hydrogen-powered Beemer which will need a truck to follow it with refills. Bless.
Speaking of which, and competition between political parties, it was Mr. Cameron who rather famously cycled to work with his lunchbox following behind in a hybrid Lexus. But at least his wind turbine went up today. I have posed a question online as to its actual enviROI during its lifespan. While I see no problem with forking out extra cash to save the planet, I do have one with churning out superficial guff that will do no such thing. And the spin vs. action surrounding that inner-city propeller blade makes for a worthy metaphor on what we are facing.
I have long been in favour of allowances, but simply can’t see how they are to be managed. Who gets one tax–free flight? Me? Madonna and Guy? What about every Kalahari bushman and Mekong Delta boat lady who didn’t even know they were part of the global reckoning. Or... aren’t they? Is it just for rich folk to trade with each other? Because if 6 billion get one free flight I’d say Ryan Air shares will go ballistic. And the planet will fry in a fortnight.
There’s debate all right. Maybe it’s me, but from deniers and e-fascists on climate change, to politicians trying to score cheap, non-binding e-points, it all seems pretty ineffective stuff. And if it’s passing me by when I care as much as I do, I think it all needs to get a bit more relevant to the rest of the UK population sooner rather than later.
And on the day we see a bunch more taxes go up in the budget, with little to show for it than more beancounters with clipboards, those who are in power, and those in un-elected Quangos doing very nicely from their profligate, unaccountable spending, would do well to remember the people still have a vote.
At least for now.
Nope, still can't see any ships on the horizon quite yet.
ADDENDUM:
Phew. And I thought no one read... or cared... about Little Britain (now a Virgin Atlantic campaign being run in New York under the guise of 'a local initiative'. Go get 'em, Ricardo!).
Heathrow scramble starts as EU agrees historic 'open skies' deal - http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2383920.ece
'European transport ministers took the historic step of approving an open skies pact to liberalise the transatlantic airline market yesterday, triggering a scramble to launch new services from Heathrow to major US cities' - weeeee, more planes! That will help.
Budget 07: mean not green - http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_sauven/2007/03/budget_07_mean_not_green_.html - 'The reintroduction of the fuel escalator was the chancellor's only real concession to the environment lobby.' - so, not so green from HMG's next PM then.
Green groups warn of backlash against Budget - http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2377703.ece - kind of does what it says on the tin
'You can't change world by wearing sandals' - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/17/noleary17.xml - Luckily, the heads of EU government feel his pain
I'd go on, but then Mr. cc would mock me for my awesome length, and I am feeling Friday fragile.
It would still be nice to get an answer to my question, though:)
I'd like to understand how this CarbCon trading thing works.
No, really.
Brit's Eye View: U.K. climate politics heating up
It is worth remembering that, like many cultures, there are always a few alternative ways something can get taken, depending on the point you are looking from.
In the UK, it often seems there is what happens in the corridors of power and the surrounding London C-zone (in London the C is for congestion charge, but some may say it could also stand for ‘centric’, the way the city’s young, non-parent, tube, bus and flat-road blessed cyclopaths seem to view things) that takes in the media and urban luvvies.... and the rest of the country.
For sure, the environment is BIG. Certainly in government - we just had another budget where they stuck it to those 4x4s again, which will really make a difference to those in the City earning a bazzillion trading carbon credits when it comes to the annual upgrade to a wind-powered Cayenne, but may make it a bit harder in countryside where folk are still running 30 year old Land Rovers. Remind me again, how much of a car’s carbon is in manufacture?
Glad the EU is agreeing to stuff anyway. Well, the leaders are not agreeing to very much they are asking the rest of us to do, if Mr. Baroso's defence of his Touareg is anything to go by. And our dear leader, and equally dear leader of HM’s Opposition seem to have a small problem with the whole not flying thing if it applies to making THEIR lives nicer, easier and/or more profitable. Like the rest of us were doing it, especially on business, because we just love sucking up the bird flu from row 22.
And as to targets, we have enough for even an NRA Glee Club to go ape over. Hitting them... not so good. But we got ‘em. Squillions! And even more folk to assess, measure, interpret, committee, file, report, fine, explain, excuse, fly to Bali to discuss and all round not do very much but add to the demands on the public purse to keep a load of folk in green-gold until Armageddon.
Now I don’t want to get into a ‘Big Oil denier/Eco-Nazi who said what and is funded by whom’ quote-fest, but I would like to know who the ‘most commentators’ were who welcomed this package. ‘Cos I don’t recall it being quite as all round rosy and unequivocal as that. At least outside the C-zone, and even a few media guys from within that seemed a little less than impressed with how recognition of a need ever seems to turn into effective action.
Yes, stuff needs doing. And to ensure it gets done right, what it is needs to be agreed. Sadly, and it pains me to say this, this does necessitate some KPIs, but here is where think-tanks, government, eco-activists, business, the media, the public and real life may start to diverge.
Me, I just want what’s best for my kids and their kids, so all I really care about is the enviROI, the return that the planet gets on any efforts made to reduce man’s impact upon it (if indeed there is any, or whether it is necessary or not to mitigate a possible natural influence... or not). Been there. Got the blog-flames and a nifty hemp T-shirt that says “Make sure your footprint isn’t a CarbCon one’.
Chancellor Gordon Brown, who MAY be Prime Minister from June unless I have missed something, does have a fondness for decrees. Not so popular with the British public though, such things. And as pointed out, there is theory and there is practice, and who is in office and who is not. Plus who has retired with a nice index-linked, gold-plated pension, and who is mopping up afterwards.
Unless I was only reading subversive underground literature, Enviro Minister David Miliband’s floated ideas on personal carbon allowances were more of the lead balloon variety, being meant for no more than a toe dip and not exactly floated very high at all. And the guns seemed pretty well out for it even with the wee outing it did have.
A bit like those punted by David Cameron, the Conservative leader and, possibly, next leader of the land if the current polls are anything to go by. Both see carbon allowances and trading as a wheeze, and it is easy to see how they would appeal to those with mates in London, and being immune from the consequences of their actions ’because they are busy and important’. Just ask how the old road pricing went down. No problem in London. Not so great where folk have 50 mile round trips daily in the provinces.
I am also unclear as to how the science is getting... any clearer. The IPCC report rated two days in the broadsheets and barely got a mention in the tabloids. A few niche TV media had a stab. Then along came the Channel 4 documentary (mentioned in these pages), and fewer people think climate is an issue than did before. And that wasn’t many. Most think it’s a big con to squeeze taxes in the name of green to prop up runaway public spending and ministerial pensions and pointless campaigns from overfunded comms budgets.
If big companies are getting serious, it’s only because they don’t like the look of the fines coming, or see money in the marketing. Major retailers like Tescos are struggling to explain how a wind-turbine on a trial store’s roof makes up for concreting over most of the country with car parks to sell Spanish strawberries in foam packs. Especially as the former will boost profits anyway. Meanwhile Richard Branson is still spinning how sending billionaires up on a column of greenhouse gasses for their own inter-stellar Kodak moment is offset by his air fleet not yet being on biodiesel. And Stuart Rose of M&S has ordered a hydrogen-powered Beemer which will need a truck to follow it with refills. Bless.
Speaking of which, and competition between political parties, it was Mr. Cameron who rather famously cycled to work with his lunchbox following behind in a hybrid Lexus. But at least his wind turbine went up today. I have posed a question online as to its actual enviROI during its lifespan. While I see no problem with forking out extra cash to save the planet, I do have one with churning out superficial guff that will do no such thing. And the spin vs. action surrounding that inner-city propeller blade makes for a worthy metaphor on what we are facing.
I have long been in favour of allowances, but simply can’t see how they are to be managed. Who gets one tax–free flight? Me? Madonna and Guy? What about every Kalahari bushman and Mekong Delta boat lady who didn’t even know they were part of the global reckoning. Or... aren’t they? Is it just for rich folk to trade with each other? Because if 6 billion get one free flight I’d say Ryan Air shares will go ballistic. And the planet will fry in a fortnight.
There’s debate all right. Maybe it’s me, but from deniers and e-fascists on climate change, to politicians trying to score cheap, non-binding e-points, it all seems pretty ineffective stuff. And if it’s passing me by when I care as much as I do, I think it all needs to get a bit more relevant to the rest of the UK population sooner rather than later.
And on the day we see a bunch more taxes go up in the budget, with little to show for it than more beancounters with clipboards, those who are in power, and those in un-elected Quangos doing very nicely from their profligate, unaccountable spending, would do well to remember the people still have a vote.
At least for now.
Nope, still can't see any ships on the horizon quite yet.
ADDENDUM:
Phew. And I thought no one read... or cared... about Little Britain (now a Virgin Atlantic campaign being run in New York under the guise of 'a local initiative'. Go get 'em, Ricardo!).
Heathrow scramble starts as EU agrees historic 'open skies' deal - http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2383920.ece
'European transport ministers took the historic step of approving an open skies pact to liberalise the transatlantic airline market yesterday, triggering a scramble to launch new services from Heathrow to major US cities' - weeeee, more planes! That will help.
Budget 07: mean not green - http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_sauven/2007/03/budget_07_mean_not_green_.html - 'The reintroduction of the fuel escalator was the chancellor's only real concession to the environment lobby.' - so, not so green from HMG's next PM then.
Green groups warn of backlash against Budget - http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2377703.ece - kind of does what it says on the tin
'You can't change world by wearing sandals' - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/17/noleary17.xml - Luckily, the heads of EU government feel his pain
I'd go on, but then Mr. cc would mock me for my awesome length, and I am feeling Friday fragile.
It would still be nice to get an answer to my question, though:)
I'd like to understand how this CarbCon trading thing works.
No, really.
I won't be the first...
All homes energy efficient within decade says Brown
'Based on consultations with banks and building societies, he said measures to lower a household's carbon footprint had the potential to create a market for a range of new "green" financial products'
Nice idea.
http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=6038
'Based on consultations with banks and building societies, he said measures to lower a household's carbon footprint had the potential to create a market for a range of new "green" financial products'
Nice idea.
http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=6038
Doing the rounds.
Up on the roof...Cameron's wind turbine arrives
I do wonder what the enviROI - the return on investment to the planet in terms of carbon saved, and the bit that really matters to those serious about making our kids' futures better - was of designing, making, delivering and erecting this edifice?
Is it possible that it actually has been worse (I only ask... I don't know. But if the lifespan is in excess of the payback period, what then)?
If so, then it truly is a fitting testimony to the fact that we live in an era of spin over substance.
I do wonder what the enviROI - the return on investment to the planet in terms of carbon saved, and the bit that really matters to those serious about making our kids' futures better - was of designing, making, delivering and erecting this edifice?
Is it possible that it actually has been worse (I only ask... I don't know. But if the lifespan is in excess of the payback period, what then)?
If so, then it truly is a fitting testimony to the fact that we live in an era of spin over substance.
You're on Can'd Camera!
Only that was funny ha-ha, not sadder than hell.
Cameras in cans to spill the beans on fly-tippers
Nice to see some authorities still have their priorities straight.
Cameras in cans to spill the beans on fly-tippers
Nice to see some authorities still have their priorities straight.
Author! Author!
I am again grateful to reader Dave of Solarventi, who sent me this link to a piece entitled 'Fifteen painless ways to save the World', with the comment 'they are missing re:use'.
Quite.
One day I am going... need to write a book based on Junkk.com.
In many ways it will be totally pointless, because all it will contain is a synthesis of the thousands of pages freely available on the site. But some people just like to pay money for a thing, and as I need money it seems like a good exchange.
Of course, there is the small matter of it being produced in bookly stuff, which may be deemed a tad un-eco, as opposed to squirted down a broadband connection near you, with an almost infinite and searchable database of whatever takes your fancy.
Tricky to browse in the loo of a morning, or the conservatory on a Sunday, I'll grant you, but compromises need to be made, I guess.
Whether on not it will include a link to the author of the piece above, or her book, is rather down to her. When I first heard of it, as always I sent a cheery hello and invited them to upload, for free, onto the site. I even called a few times to see how we could do stuff together for mutual benefit. Sadly, she has people, and people who have people are the luckiest people in the world. Because they are very busy, and thus the people they have can deal with so much more. Or not. They're still welcome to upload, but I am not doing it for them.
And, I guess, despite knowing full well who I am and what Junkk.com does, they are more in the business of selling green rather than sharing it, so we may be on a hiding to nothing.
Pity.
Because while there are some fine, if obvious, suggestions, I could have suggested a few things, such as...
3 Ask your water company for a free "hippo"..
...or... an even simpler plastic device to put in the cistern from what you throw out, to obviate the need to make a new thing out of plastic simply to fill some space. Oh, and if it doesn't flush properly because of it, careful you don't end up flushing several times, which kinda defeats the purpose.
4 Install a condensing boiler to heat your water and home...
For sure. Though how that is easy and painless I'd like explaining. As stated, at least you get a return for your outlay, but not all have the outlay, and this needs facilitating, Gordon, about... now (Budget speech is on)
5 Use energy-saving light bulbs.
Yup. And the shops to buy them come in all shapes and sizes beyond ebulbshop.com. Many however make claims they don't live up to on lifespan. Write when you fitted one in felt tip on the housing. You can soon see if you are getting your average as claimed. If not, take it back.
6 Don't overfill your kettle.
There may be others, and I'll sahre equally if they let me know, but our EcoKettle does the trick. Maybe they are not good mates like ecobulb.
7 Lower your thermostat.
Yup. Try telling my Chinese missus that is painless. I'd say insulation was a better bet, but there you go.
8 Buy organic food .
Er, maybe. This jury is still out, at least on such a broad claim. Big Barn is good, though, as a start.
9 Reset your computer.
There is theory and there is practice. My monitor goes off. My CPU stays on to get updates. I am also debating the damage due to spinning up and down and hence requiring renewal. Sorry.
10 Save paper.
Ever tried reloading used paper into the printer? It's a nice theory. I am trying to figure out just how much value there is to this (plus security issues) when my paper is recycled and/or from managed forest. Isn't this like creating a carbon sink?
11 Don't buy "sweaty" fabrics such as nylon and polyester
That's the fleece made from old Coke bottles out then.
12 Use your washing line.
Today (lovely & sunny)... no prob, though in the conservatory. It doesn't work so well in the rain. Or if you have a flat. Or don't have much time. I converted our airing cupboard to a drying version of same, and it takes damp from the washing machine to dry overnight. Not so sure about the humid air driven off. I think Dave may have a suggestion on that! A wall mounted solar dryer!
14 Convert to a green energy tariff
Just make sure you do the maths and know the provenance chain. It's one thing to blow extra cash to save the planet. Another to line some green spiv's pockets.
15 Recycle!
This may sound obvious, but try re:use or re:pair first. That way you are stopping stuff going into a target-based system that gobbles up energy and may not be as good for the planet as contractor's profits and public servant's pensions.
ADDENDUM:
Have written to the Enviro Ed, Charles Clover:
One of our readers has just popped this over.
While it's great to see interest in such matters generating informational resources, it can be disappointing when some of the advice may be a bit 'Islington vs. Ipswich' with, for instance, the purchase of a new boiler being possibly slightly more painful to some than suggested, no matter what the long term ROI. With luck Mr. Brown may be helping with this as we speak. A boy can dream:)
I just like to suggest that there could well be many, more, and more down to earth measures than those indicated, and would fly the flag for a few more to add, such as re:use and re:pair to that 15, in time to come.
I am please to say that he replied in short order, and was kind enough to see my point.
Quite.
One day I am going... need to write a book based on Junkk.com.
In many ways it will be totally pointless, because all it will contain is a synthesis of the thousands of pages freely available on the site. But some people just like to pay money for a thing, and as I need money it seems like a good exchange.
Of course, there is the small matter of it being produced in bookly stuff, which may be deemed a tad un-eco, as opposed to squirted down a broadband connection near you, with an almost infinite and searchable database of whatever takes your fancy.
Tricky to browse in the loo of a morning, or the conservatory on a Sunday, I'll grant you, but compromises need to be made, I guess.
Whether on not it will include a link to the author of the piece above, or her book, is rather down to her. When I first heard of it, as always I sent a cheery hello and invited them to upload, for free, onto the site. I even called a few times to see how we could do stuff together for mutual benefit. Sadly, she has people, and people who have people are the luckiest people in the world. Because they are very busy, and thus the people they have can deal with so much more. Or not. They're still welcome to upload, but I am not doing it for them.
And, I guess, despite knowing full well who I am and what Junkk.com does, they are more in the business of selling green rather than sharing it, so we may be on a hiding to nothing.
Pity.
Because while there are some fine, if obvious, suggestions, I could have suggested a few things, such as...
3 Ask your water company for a free "hippo"..
...or... an even simpler plastic device to put in the cistern from what you throw out, to obviate the need to make a new thing out of plastic simply to fill some space. Oh, and if it doesn't flush properly because of it, careful you don't end up flushing several times, which kinda defeats the purpose.
4 Install a condensing boiler to heat your water and home...
For sure. Though how that is easy and painless I'd like explaining. As stated, at least you get a return for your outlay, but not all have the outlay, and this needs facilitating, Gordon, about... now (Budget speech is on)
5 Use energy-saving light bulbs.
Yup. And the shops to buy them come in all shapes and sizes beyond ebulbshop.com. Many however make claims they don't live up to on lifespan. Write when you fitted one in felt tip on the housing. You can soon see if you are getting your average as claimed. If not, take it back.
6 Don't overfill your kettle.
There may be others, and I'll sahre equally if they let me know, but our EcoKettle does the trick. Maybe they are not good mates like ecobulb.
7 Lower your thermostat.
Yup. Try telling my Chinese missus that is painless. I'd say insulation was a better bet, but there you go.
8 Buy organic food .
Er, maybe. This jury is still out, at least on such a broad claim. Big Barn is good, though, as a start.
9 Reset your computer.
There is theory and there is practice. My monitor goes off. My CPU stays on to get updates. I am also debating the damage due to spinning up and down and hence requiring renewal. Sorry.
10 Save paper.
Ever tried reloading used paper into the printer? It's a nice theory. I am trying to figure out just how much value there is to this (plus security issues) when my paper is recycled and/or from managed forest. Isn't this like creating a carbon sink?
11 Don't buy "sweaty" fabrics such as nylon and polyester
That's the fleece made from old Coke bottles out then.
12 Use your washing line.
Today (lovely & sunny)... no prob, though in the conservatory. It doesn't work so well in the rain. Or if you have a flat. Or don't have much time. I converted our airing cupboard to a drying version of same, and it takes damp from the washing machine to dry overnight. Not so sure about the humid air driven off. I think Dave may have a suggestion on that! A wall mounted solar dryer!
14 Convert to a green energy tariff
Just make sure you do the maths and know the provenance chain. It's one thing to blow extra cash to save the planet. Another to line some green spiv's pockets.
15 Recycle!
This may sound obvious, but try re:use or re:pair first. That way you are stopping stuff going into a target-based system that gobbles up energy and may not be as good for the planet as contractor's profits and public servant's pensions.
ADDENDUM:
Have written to the Enviro Ed, Charles Clover:
One of our readers has just popped this over.
While it's great to see interest in such matters generating informational resources, it can be disappointing when some of the advice may be a bit 'Islington vs. Ipswich' with, for instance, the purchase of a new boiler being possibly slightly more painful to some than suggested, no matter what the long term ROI. With luck Mr. Brown may be helping with this as we speak. A boy can dream:)
I just like to suggest that there could well be many, more, and more down to earth measures than those indicated, and would fly the flag for a few more to add, such as re:use and re:pair to that 15, in time to come.
I am please to say that he replied in short order, and was kind enough to see my point.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Procrastination can have its merits
A wee while ago Dave of Solarventi wrote asking me my thoughts about M&S's 'There is no Plan B' eco-conversion.
My reply at the time was that I'd be more impressed if they would answer my calls and those of some others (like Dave) who had a few actual suggestions on reduction and reuse that might actually do more than spin the hype turbines. Then I forgot all about it as I now have 500 emails in my in-box since the weekend.
But then I read this: Is Rose's footprint as green as it seems?
Now I have been a bit exhausted by the venom flying about when critics address the man (sorry, PC-types) and not the science, but I do rather share the notion that if the message the messenger is bringing is one of 'do as I say!' then not doing it personally chips at the old pedestal foundations a tad. Especially when these folk are either rolling in it and/or have long since ceased to have any grasp on the realities of paying the bills by being in waaaaaay too much power.
So to the merry ranks of Tony 'Well me not flying isn't really isn't practical when I have lectures to fund my mortgage(s)' B, David 'See how it spins... and the turbine' C, Richard 'My whole fleet is flying on old chips, including the geriatric billionaire space tourists' B et Al 'But I only fly my own jet because I'm busy' G, I think we can add Stuart 'My Beemer may be saving the planet, but the fleet of trucks following behind with liquid hydrogen refills may not be' R.
PolPorkies.info almost has enough to kick off.
Ya think?
Though I doubt I'll ever get my calls answered now.
My reply at the time was that I'd be more impressed if they would answer my calls and those of some others (like Dave) who had a few actual suggestions on reduction and reuse that might actually do more than spin the hype turbines. Then I forgot all about it as I now have 500 emails in my in-box since the weekend.
But then I read this: Is Rose's footprint as green as it seems?
Now I have been a bit exhausted by the venom flying about when critics address the man (sorry, PC-types) and not the science, but I do rather share the notion that if the message the messenger is bringing is one of 'do as I say!' then not doing it personally chips at the old pedestal foundations a tad. Especially when these folk are either rolling in it and/or have long since ceased to have any grasp on the realities of paying the bills by being in waaaaaay too much power.
So to the merry ranks of Tony 'Well me not flying isn't really isn't practical when I have lectures to fund my mortgage(s)' B, David 'See how it spins... and the turbine' C, Richard 'My whole fleet is flying on old chips, including the geriatric billionaire space tourists' B et Al 'But I only fly my own jet because I'm busy' G, I think we can add Stuart 'My Beemer may be saving the planet, but the fleet of trucks following behind with liquid hydrogen refills may not be' R.
PolPorkies.info almost has enough to kick off.
Ya think?
Though I doubt I'll ever get my calls answered now.
You never know
Green and pleasant
'The journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step.'
Now... don't get worried, get weaving!
At least you have been moved to try, and are to be applauded. All I ask is that we don't get subjected to yet another Islington version of making a difference, so those of us not blessed with the speed dial to a rocker with a tight schedule may feel equally inspired to do our bit as well, with perhaps a little less of the green that makes going green more pleasant for some.
Stop thinking interest-group (that includes Govt.) agendas. The heck with carbon trading (so long as guys in suits are in charge of them). Recycling is great. But reduction is better. And in between are reuse and repair, which can be fun and very rewarding.
I'm staking my kids' future on it. And it's a heck of a legacy to leave.
Click the link to find out more. We can all be bipolar explorers together.
'The journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step.'
Now... don't get worried, get weaving!
At least you have been moved to try, and are to be applauded. All I ask is that we don't get subjected to yet another Islington version of making a difference, so those of us not blessed with the speed dial to a rocker with a tight schedule may feel equally inspired to do our bit as well, with perhaps a little less of the green that makes going green more pleasant for some.
Stop thinking interest-group (that includes Govt.) agendas. The heck with carbon trading (so long as guys in suits are in charge of them). Recycling is great. But reduction is better. And in between are reuse and repair, which can be fun and very rewarding.
I'm staking my kids' future on it. And it's a heck of a legacy to leave.
Click the link to find out more. We can all be bipolar explorers together.
Funny old thing, irony, eh?
Are we all explorers now?
'Package holidays are in such steep decline that holiday companies are taking drastic action.'
And here was me thinking folk were getting the green bug and staying at home.
Nope, they are just going even further.
Next thing they'll be punting themselves into outer space atop a pillar of greenhouse gasses just to take a picture of what the planet used to look like before, well, they started punting themselves into outer space atop a pillar of greenhouse gasses just to take a picture of what the planet used to look like.
Funny old thing, irony, eh?
'Package holidays are in such steep decline that holiday companies are taking drastic action.'
And here was me thinking folk were getting the green bug and staying at home.
Nope, they are just going even further.
Next thing they'll be punting themselves into outer space atop a pillar of greenhouse gasses just to take a picture of what the planet used to look like before, well, they started punting themselves into outer space atop a pillar of greenhouse gasses just to take a picture of what the planet used to look like.
Funny old thing, irony, eh?
Way too much time on his hands
It's OK, MPs are recycling hot air
"How, I hear you ask, did your old chum W. A. come to be the leading "green guru" (dread job description!) to all three major parties?"
To be deadly, if unfashionably, serious juts this once, for a scribe the mandatory is also to live only within the London C (as in 'centric')-zone.
That way the fool-miles are easier to justify:)
"How, I hear you ask, did your old chum W. A. come to be the leading "green guru" (dread job description!) to all three major parties?"
To be deadly, if unfashionably, serious juts this once, for a scribe the mandatory is also to live only within the London C (as in 'centric')-zone.
That way the fool-miles are easier to justify:)
I'm a poet. But you... would probably disagree
A host of plastic daffodils
I drove my G reg, gas-guzzlin' Silver Cloud
Bought for naught but now dripping bills
When all at once by light as indicator flickr'd
A hedgerow decked with witches' knickers
Atop the lake, hanging from trees,
Sod the planet, we've tourists to please.
I drove my G reg, gas-guzzlin' Silver Cloud
Bought for naught but now dripping bills
When all at once by light as indicator flickr'd
A hedgerow decked with witches' knickers
Atop the lake, hanging from trees,
Sod the planet, we've tourists to please.
No FT, no...?
A healthy debate
FT stands for Flippin' Time. If I haven't got much spare, and there is no end benefit, what's the point in wasting any?
I'm really only interested in what might score some readers back to my blog, which needs a link, or furthering my pet causes, which needs some open minds online.
The Telegraph 'moderates' a lot, which can be off-putting. The Guardian does not. The former puts last first, while most you have to scroll all through to get to the latest. All can add, or detrat, to the appeal of offering free editorial.
I have a cut-off of a hundred, because usually that means by then a core brigade are trading shots, which gets no one anywhere. A shame, because often a good post can come in late as the poster has only just arrived and still feels they can contribute.
That said, I often wait a few days and lob one in just to have the last word. Though to be professional, that does mean reading all inbetween, which can be a chore.
Like digging for the gold seam, you never know what you may miss if you give up to soon.
Curse this damn urge to discover and share!
Hey, it's lunchtime. I had a banana in one hand and some time on the other.
FT stands for Flippin' Time. If I haven't got much spare, and there is no end benefit, what's the point in wasting any?
I'm really only interested in what might score some readers back to my blog, which needs a link, or furthering my pet causes, which needs some open minds online.
The Telegraph 'moderates' a lot, which can be off-putting. The Guardian does not. The former puts last first, while most you have to scroll all through to get to the latest. All can add, or detrat, to the appeal of offering free editorial.
I have a cut-off of a hundred, because usually that means by then a core brigade are trading shots, which gets no one anywhere. A shame, because often a good post can come in late as the poster has only just arrived and still feels they can contribute.
That said, I often wait a few days and lob one in just to have the last word. Though to be professional, that does mean reading all inbetween, which can be a chore.
Like digging for the gold seam, you never know what you may miss if you give up to soon.
Curse this damn urge to discover and share!
Hey, it's lunchtime. I had a banana in one hand and some time on the other.
Nothing like a bit of editting
Manipulating 'weak-minded Westerners'
Take a careful look at the comments that are posted to your favourite blogs. They could come from Muslim extremists in disguise. Honestly.
Take a careful look at the news from your daily newspapers. They could come from agenda-driven hype merchants disguised as journalists. Honestly.
Take a careful look at the comments that are posted to your favourite blogs. They could come from Muslim extremists in disguise. Honestly.
Take a careful look at the news from your daily newspapers. They could come from agenda-driven hype merchants disguised as journalists. Honestly.
Words, almost, fail me
A celebrity-endorsed bag proclaiming 'I'm not a plastic bag' is expected to sell out within hours
But I may just manage a quick comment that this pack of eco-morons and their sheep like media luvvies think it is helping the planet to get the brain dead, more money-than-sensisats to dash out to buy another bag to do their shopping in.
But I may just manage a quick comment that this pack of eco-morons and their sheep like media luvvies think it is helping the planet to get the brain dead, more money-than-sensisats to dash out to buy another bag to do their shopping in.
What chance doing if they are still not yet understanding
Gordon the green engine?
Whatever measures Mr. Brown does take, and lord alone knows some are necessary, it is to be hoped that they will be thought through and 'sold' to the public a darn sight better than they have been to date.
One major hurdle is to convince those who do not live in the London-C - for centric- zone (between the BBC in the West, Canary Wharf in the East, and all the various political and activist hotspots in between, which are easily accessed by tube, bus and bike (weather, lack of kids, more than one shopping bag, not living in a flat city... permitting}) that this is not some half-baked notion cooked up by an urban elite with no idea of the real world most of the population is struggling to live and work in.
So how one financially dissuades a squillionaire Yummy Mummy in her annually renewed Cayenne, whilst not bankrupting a farmer in their 30 year old Land Rover (how much is produced simply in in a car's manufacture?), to get both in a Hybrid (good log pullers, I'm sure) is anyone's guess.
Especially, as I understand it, in London (all hail) the EverReady-buggy can buzz about all day, emitting away, for free, while a Suzuki Vitara would get busted for a 3 mile trip to and from Paddington from Wandsworth to be parked, CO2less, all day. Kensington to the City and you're golden... er.. green to go in a Hummer, of course.
So how long 'it' emits is surely as key as what? But then you need to work around the district nurse in the Dales with her Fiesta, and you have a Gordknotian problem to unravel.
As for air travel, well let's just not go there. Really. Let's not. At least, if you are serious (Tony B, Al G, all climate 'experts' with conferences and/or book deals, etc, please note).
I wish any pol good luck signalling their understanding of this. And in ways I not only understand... but believe.
If not... see you at the voting booth.
Telegraph - Brown's green tax rise on 'gas-guzzling' cars
Whatever measures Mr. Brown does take, and lord alone knows some are necessary, it is to be hoped that they will be thought through and 'sold' to the public a darn sight better than they have been to date.
One major hurdle is to convince those who do not live in the London-C - for centric- zone (between the BBC in the West, Canary Wharf in the East, and all the various political and activist hotspots in between, which are easily accessed by tube, bus and bike (weather, lack of kids, more than one shopping bag, not living in a flat city... permitting}) that this is not some half-baked notion cooked up by an urban elite with no idea of the real world most of the population is struggling to live and work in.
So how one financially dissuades a squillionaire Yummy Mummy in her annually renewed Cayenne, whilst not bankrupting a farmer in their 30 year old Land Rover (how much is produced simply in in a car's manufacture?), to get both in a Hybrid (good log pullers, I'm sure) is anyone's guess.
Especially, as I understand it, in London (all hail) the EverReady-buggy can buzz about all day, emitting away, for free, while a Suzuki Vitara would get busted for a 3 mile trip to and from Paddington from Wandsworth to be parked, CO2less, all day. Kensington to the City and you're golden... er.. green to go in a Hummer, of course.
So how long 'it' emits is surely as key as what? But then you need to work around the district nurse in the Dales with her Fiesta, and you have a Gordknotian problem to unravel.
As for air travel, well let's just not go there. Really. Let's not. At least, if you are serious (Tony B, Al G, all climate 'experts' with conferences and/or book deals, etc, please note).
I wish any pol good luck signalling their understanding of this. And in ways I not only understand... but believe.
If not... see you at the voting booth.
Telegraph - Brown's green tax rise on 'gas-guzzling' cars
Title Fight #2 - the US primaries!
More prompted by Grist:
The latest debate on 'overselling' climate science
In an earlier post on these pages I have cautioned against a defensive mentality... Hiding behind the veracity of science is comforting as a justification, but care must be taken that one only sees one aspect of science as 'the truth', and remains didactic in fighting from only that corner. These are challenges to be addressed...
But in light of a few posts above I'd like to share an exchange I had in the UK media:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/it-must-be-true-i-read-it-in-paper.html
---
Titles matter.
Does an Ace beat a King? A King a Queen, etc.
Of course, there is the small matter of the Jester.
Because when it comes to climate science, this has become key.
I am guessing a Professor beats a Doctor, but maybe not.
Then there are qualifiers.
Does 'eminent' mean more than 'noted'. And in what combination?
And is the quiet guy, who knows his/her stuff and gets on with it, better to explain than the one with a slick sound bite and speed dial to the media?
Frankly, I do not know what to believe any more, because I do not know who to believe.
Pity.
---
To which I had what I consider a fun, but still helpful reply:
---
Personally I'd be inclined to proceed by a lexicographic ordering on the following:
1. area of specialisation (climatology > geology > chemistry > mathematics > other science > arts, etc.);
2. level of qualification (in the UK, professor > senior fellow > lecturer > postdoc > PhD student > graduate), i.e. prefer the lecturer in geology to the PhD student in the same subject;
3. host institution, i.e. when faced with conflicting opinions from two climatology professors, prefer the Oxford professor to the one hosted by some US big-oil thinktank.
---
Sadly the majority of the other artillery exchanges mirrored those I too often see here.
To make it a more of a global wa... rming affair, you may enjoy playing with these too: http://www.badscience.net/?p=386
The latest debate on 'overselling' climate science
In an earlier post on these pages I have cautioned against a defensive mentality... Hiding behind the veracity of science is comforting as a justification, but care must be taken that one only sees one aspect of science as 'the truth', and remains didactic in fighting from only that corner. These are challenges to be addressed...
But in light of a few posts above I'd like to share an exchange I had in the UK media:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/it-must-be-true-i-read-it-in-paper.html
---
Titles matter.
Does an Ace beat a King? A King a Queen, etc.
Of course, there is the small matter of the Jester.
Because when it comes to climate science, this has become key.
I am guessing a Professor beats a Doctor, but maybe not.
Then there are qualifiers.
Does 'eminent' mean more than 'noted'. And in what combination?
And is the quiet guy, who knows his/her stuff and gets on with it, better to explain than the one with a slick sound bite and speed dial to the media?
Frankly, I do not know what to believe any more, because I do not know who to believe.
Pity.
---
To which I had what I consider a fun, but still helpful reply:
---
Personally I'd be inclined to proceed by a lexicographic ordering on the following:
1. area of specialisation (climatology > geology > chemistry > mathematics > other science > arts, etc.);
2. level of qualification (in the UK, professor > senior fellow > lecturer > postdoc > PhD student > graduate), i.e. prefer the lecturer in geology to the PhD student in the same subject;
3. host institution, i.e. when faced with conflicting opinions from two climatology professors, prefer the Oxford professor to the one hosted by some US big-oil thinktank.
---
Sadly the majority of the other artillery exchanges mirrored those I too often see here.
To make it a more of a global wa... rming affair, you may enjoy playing with these too: http://www.badscience.net/?p=386
Mirror, mirror
I rely on the very excellent Grist for many things, and will continue to do so, but where it strays into Global Warming territory I think they are in danger of losing the plot. I don't doubt their sincerity, but as to the methodology... well, they've lost me.
A long rant about facts, persuasion, and global warming
'If only God the gift had gae us, to see oursel's as others see us'
Robert Burns
Re: A long rant about facts, persuasion, and global warming
I guess it's OK here (though while I am personally interested, I don't feel qualified and hence any more able to stay adequately focused on all this, possibly along with a few others who may not feel motivated to make it even as far as this fine forum), but here are a few subjective points to offer.
While some facts do need length for the full stories to be adequately told, when talking about persuasion on global warming, I suspect few media outlets are prepared to permit anything more than a sound bite that will feed the next headline.
Hiding behind the veracity of science is comforting as a justification, and its purity over realities of communication a possible consolation, but care must be taken that one only sees one aspect of science as 'the truth', and remains didactic in fighting from only that corner.
These are challenges to be addressed, whist avoiding a few other things.
High on the list, possibly, could be rants?
A long rant about facts, persuasion, and global warming
'If only God the gift had gae us, to see oursel's as others see us'
Robert Burns
Re: A long rant about facts, persuasion, and global warming
I guess it's OK here (though while I am personally interested, I don't feel qualified and hence any more able to stay adequately focused on all this, possibly along with a few others who may not feel motivated to make it even as far as this fine forum), but here are a few subjective points to offer.
While some facts do need length for the full stories to be adequately told, when talking about persuasion on global warming, I suspect few media outlets are prepared to permit anything more than a sound bite that will feed the next headline.
Hiding behind the veracity of science is comforting as a justification, and its purity over realities of communication a possible consolation, but care must be taken that one only sees one aspect of science as 'the truth', and remains didactic in fighting from only that corner.
These are challenges to be addressed, whist avoiding a few other things.
High on the list, possibly, could be rants?
Monday, March 19, 2007
Another Idea Gets Approved
There, but for the grace of God...
Poor man's floating home turns Rio recycling model
I have the trash.
And the River Wye looks set to oblige.
I have the trash.
And the River Wye looks set to oblige.
DO what?!!!!!
Council tax valuers recruit a spy in sky 'snooping on households'
If it's true, of course.
If it's true, of course.
Yummy... mummy!
Re-cycle of Life
Sorry. Don't feel sorry for Dave the Wave.. er.. Save at all. So as ye preach, so shall ye have your nethers rummaged, n' all. Comes with the territory.
I have to say I was more surprised the Turquoise (that's blue/green right?) hype & spinmeisters had missed this one as a possibility, being that it has been done before, to great effect, to such as Mr. Bradshaw, etc. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Regrading you experiment, if your council does not collect then anything is better than nothing, and shame on them for not helping your area's residents to do so.
I have to wonder how good it is as an enviROI to not have a council truck collect and crush tonnages of material from each person in the street, and instead deliver it by Personal Fedex to a high volume, low weight skip.
Me, I keep a lot of it and make stuff (have done for years) . That doesn't cost money. It saves it. And can even make it.
Sorry. Don't feel sorry for Dave the Wave.. er.. Save at all. So as ye preach, so shall ye have your nethers rummaged, n' all. Comes with the territory.
I have to say I was more surprised the Turquoise (that's blue/green right?) hype & spinmeisters had missed this one as a possibility, being that it has been done before, to great effect, to such as Mr. Bradshaw, etc. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Regrading you experiment, if your council does not collect then anything is better than nothing, and shame on them for not helping your area's residents to do so.
I have to wonder how good it is as an enviROI to not have a council truck collect and crush tonnages of material from each person in the street, and instead deliver it by Personal Fedex to a high volume, low weight skip.
Me, I keep a lot of it and make stuff (have done for years) . That doesn't cost money. It saves it. And can even make it.
At least we still have the vote. For now.
Council salaries revealed under the FoI act
One presumes this information freel... er... grudgingly shared also extends to the numbers of officers there are in total, their functions, salaries and pension consequences.
Where it might fall down is actually finding out what gets done for the money, to assess the ROI per person for this investment by the local taxpayers. But it's better than nothing (the information, I mean).
But such data is only worth having if it can be used.
And with luck the local taxpayers of Hackney will make very good use of it.
One presumes this information freel... er... grudgingly shared also extends to the numbers of officers there are in total, their functions, salaries and pension consequences.
Where it might fall down is actually finding out what gets done for the money, to assess the ROI per person for this investment by the local taxpayers. But it's better than nothing (the information, I mean).
But such data is only worth having if it can be used.
And with luck the local taxpayers of Hackney will make very good use of it.
It must be true. I read it in the paper.
High hopes
'...the agreement's dirty little secret: it will do next to no good, and again at very high cost'
Oo-er. Careful with that. I rather suspect this will be the next flames begin!
I recently decided to have no more to do with the arguments over climate change, and concentrate instead on doing what I can personally and to encourage others - via objective information, entertainment and reward - to simply cut back on unnecessary waste and reduce consumption wherever reasonably possible.
Addendum to a reply:
'With so little making sense in this arena, at least even I could grasp your explanation.
It may even help assess what's being said by the various merry crews a tad better for validity.
As a mere graduate in Civil Engineering (BSc, but only on the strict promise I would not try and build anything, so I went into advertising. At least I can still figure out dodgy numbers), but with a Brigadier Generality in BS, hype & spin (field commissions), I know what I know, and I know what I don't know.
And I also know when others are in the same boat. It's a shame they can't admit it.
We'd get more DONE that way:)
Guardian - The water of discontent
'...the agreement's dirty little secret: it will do next to no good, and again at very high cost'
Oo-er. Careful with that. I rather suspect this will be the next flames begin!
I recently decided to have no more to do with the arguments over climate change, and concentrate instead on doing what I can personally and to encourage others - via objective information, entertainment and reward - to simply cut back on unnecessary waste and reduce consumption wherever reasonably possible.
Addendum to a reply:
'With so little making sense in this arena, at least even I could grasp your explanation.
It may even help assess what's being said by the various merry crews a tad better for validity.
As a mere graduate in Civil Engineering (BSc, but only on the strict promise I would not try and build anything, so I went into advertising. At least I can still figure out dodgy numbers), but with a Brigadier Generality in BS, hype & spin (field commissions), I know what I know, and I know what I don't know.
And I also know when others are in the same boat. It's a shame they can't admit it.
We'd get more DONE that way:)
Guardian - The water of discontent
Nice vest. Is it Semtex?
Recycling taxes - what a load of rubbish
When you fail to tackle advancing issues in good time and good order, the number of 'targets' can end up on your doorstep very quickly.
At this point the solution seems to be to move from rifle to shotgun to dropping a hand grenade at your feet, and hoping that it doesn't wipe out more who are 'innocent' in the hope of being seen to deal with the 'guilty'.
Nice vest. Is it Semtex?
Pathetic.
When you fail to tackle advancing issues in good time and good order, the number of 'targets' can end up on your doorstep very quickly.
At this point the solution seems to be to move from rifle to shotgun to dropping a hand grenade at your feet, and hoping that it doesn't wipe out more who are 'innocent' in the hope of being seen to deal with the 'guilty'.
Nice vest. Is it Semtex?
Pathetic.
Suffer little children. It's good business.
I just saw an ad man and a charity lady discuss a kid's ad that has been pulled for 'being distressing'. And justified as necessary to secure money, most of which goes on the next campaign.
I was sickened. But not by the ad.
Here's what I wrote.
These 'tactics' can lead in only one direction. Loads of awards for the ad agencies. Bubbly corks popping in the media agencies. Nice salaries for the expanding charity marketing departments. And how much going to what that tangibly helps kids... exactly?
I would wish this question had been answered, despite being posed more than once.
I was sickened. But not by the ad.
Here's what I wrote.
These 'tactics' can lead in only one direction. Loads of awards for the ad agencies. Bubbly corks popping in the media agencies. Nice salaries for the expanding charity marketing departments. And how much going to what that tangibly helps kids... exactly?
I would wish this question had been answered, despite being posed more than once.
The rich are different to you and I. They can better afford to cope with (knee) jerks.
I suspect that I will be adding links from elsewhere to these, not to mention a whole raft of emotive comment, Just what the media loves.
Pressure group urges higher air taxes to penalise 'rich' flyers
Brown tackles 'Chelsea tractors' in final Budget
As with road pricing I simply fear potentially necessary measures to manage personal travel emissions will get snarled up by woeful knee jerk legalisation that has little to do with the environment and more to do with hype. Not all who fly or use 4x4s are rich or doing so simply for fun.
Let's see how the BBC mangle that one.
ps: The banner ads at time of writing were... ironic. One for short haul flights. And the other for a dirty great Beemer.
BBC - Budget 'to hit gas guzzlers hard'
Guardian - Budget to give tax breaks for green homes
Sir,
As a strong advocate of incentive based measures, this is, on the surface, hard to fault. I just worry about the practice. And how fair it can be made without more legions of civil servants draining the public purse simply to assess measure, approve and/or fine.
Not all are in a position to whack up a wind turbine to order. At least the payback is being claimed as on energy created and sent back tot he grid.
What I am not keen on is greenwashing measures, that may be acceptable if it leaves the financial ROI to the wallet and conscience of the consumer, but not if the ultimate enviROI is actually worse for not being done at all. That would not be helping my kids' futures.
The question then arises whose shorter term interests are being served.
Pressure group urges higher air taxes to penalise 'rich' flyers
Brown tackles 'Chelsea tractors' in final Budget
As with road pricing I simply fear potentially necessary measures to manage personal travel emissions will get snarled up by woeful knee jerk legalisation that has little to do with the environment and more to do with hype. Not all who fly or use 4x4s are rich or doing so simply for fun.
Let's see how the BBC mangle that one.
ps: The banner ads at time of writing were... ironic. One for short haul flights. And the other for a dirty great Beemer.
BBC - Budget 'to hit gas guzzlers hard'
Guardian - Budget to give tax breaks for green homes
Sir,
As a strong advocate of incentive based measures, this is, on the surface, hard to fault. I just worry about the practice. And how fair it can be made without more legions of civil servants draining the public purse simply to assess measure, approve and/or fine.
Not all are in a position to whack up a wind turbine to order. At least the payback is being claimed as on energy created and sent back tot he grid.
What I am not keen on is greenwashing measures, that may be acceptable if it leaves the financial ROI to the wallet and conscience of the consumer, but not if the ultimate enviROI is actually worse for not being done at all. That would not be helping my kids' futures.
The question then arises whose shorter term interests are being served.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Title Fight
Titles matter.
Does an Ace beat a King? A King a Queen, etc.
Of course, there is the small matter of the Jester.
Because when it comes to climate science, this has become key.
I am guessing a Professor beats a Doctor, but maybe not.
Then there are qualifiers.
Does 'eminent' mean more than 'noted'. And in what combination?
And is the quiet guy, who knows his/her stuff and gets on with it, better to explain than the one with a slick sound bite and speed dial to the media?
Frankly, I do not know what to believe any more, because I do not know who to believe.
Pity.
Does an Ace beat a King? A King a Queen, etc.
Of course, there is the small matter of the Jester.
Because when it comes to climate science, this has become key.
I am guessing a Professor beats a Doctor, but maybe not.
Then there are qualifiers.
Does 'eminent' mean more than 'noted'. And in what combination?
And is the quiet guy, who knows his/her stuff and gets on with it, better to explain than the one with a slick sound bite and speed dial to the media?
Frankly, I do not know what to believe any more, because I do not know who to believe.
Pity.
And that... is all we have time for
This, from the BBC website, sums up a major chunk of what I think is going wrong.
If you can't get it in two minutes, or one headline, you are not going to get it, no matter how complex or what context it is in.
Pump it up. Pump it out. Shoot it down. Next!
ADDENDUM (Mon 19/3/07):
It was only a piece on cooking, but I thought it was telling.
Some guy who had won something was in a kitchen and was being asked to demo. I think he was allowed ten seconds before the reporter said ''Throw it in". When he hesitated, perhaps as a consequence of it not working , at least as it should like that, she turned to camera and said "We're running out of time' and proceeded to hog the screen saying sod all of interest to a 'celebrity' chef who is on screen too often at the drop of a white stovepipe hat.
Sir, Madam. How would you like to be cooked?
When I lived in Singapore there were many phrases in Singlish (the local patois) that could cause delight, but one I always recall were variants on the way you'd prefer your steak. Perhaps my favourite was: 'What done you want?'.
Quite. The degree of 'done', as in being so or simply having had enough and giving up with it is very topical.
I have here announced I no longer intend to blog on 'Global warming' more times than bands announce final concerts, and will doubtless be seduced to the pointless side again when something truly egregious strikes. But I have decided enough is enough. It really is getting me nowhere. And the amount of time I am wasting reading all this guff, writing about it all, and not doing what I do better is not a good investment in helping improve the planet.
To grasp why here are two recent pieces that typify the situation of, it seems to me, wanting to be 100% right rather than getting on and doing an even better % of the right thing.
Bad Science - Credit where it’s due - You gotta graph!
EDITED extra bits:
When I lived ..
I'm afraid I came to this conclusion as this latest set on the topic of 'who's 100% righter' came into my in-box along with one from the BBC - Caution urged on climate 'risks' -
I don't know what my body may be like in a decade, but my brain is already drowning in such 'information' and fried by trying to square the spirals.
...they will eat you instead.
Time for new, less self-interested, and more genuinely motivated and engaging brooms.
BBC - Caution urged on climate 'risks' - And they are not even real... well, they seem to be, but they're not the right kind (ie: our kind) of climate scientist)
Here's a newsflash. If I no longer feel like keeping up, I rather doubt most others can be bothered either. That may mean the 'deniers' (too broad, but will suffice for here) have succeeded.
But it also means that those who would claim to wish, and have the ways, to rectify matters... have failed.
When you rely on Chicken Little for your science, and then rush with his findings to the Boy Who Cried Wolf to handle the PR, and do it too often, then, like Little Red Riding Hood, it doesn't matter what you take to Big Bad Media. If it isn't palatable enough for their audiences, or spoiled by being rushed, they will eat you instead.
Time for new, less self-interested, and more genuinely motivated and engaging brooms.
Observer - Don't exaggerate climate dangers, scientists warn
Quite. The degree of 'done', as in being so or simply having had enough and giving up with it is very topical.
I have here announced I no longer intend to blog on 'Global warming' more times than bands announce final concerts, and will doubtless be seduced to the pointless side again when something truly egregious strikes. But I have decided enough is enough. It really is getting me nowhere. And the amount of time I am wasting reading all this guff, writing about it all, and not doing what I do better is not a good investment in helping improve the planet.
To grasp why here are two recent pieces that typify the situation of, it seems to me, wanting to be 100% right rather than getting on and doing an even better % of the right thing.
Bad Science - Credit where it’s due - You gotta graph!
EDITED extra bits:
When I lived ..
I'm afraid I came to this conclusion as this latest set on the topic of 'who's 100% righter' came into my in-box along with one from the BBC - Caution urged on climate 'risks' -
I don't know what my body may be like in a decade, but my brain is already drowning in such 'information' and fried by trying to square the spirals.
...they will eat you instead.
Time for new, less self-interested, and more genuinely motivated and engaging brooms.
BBC - Caution urged on climate 'risks' - And they are not even real... well, they seem to be, but they're not the right kind (ie: our kind) of climate scientist)
Here's a newsflash. If I no longer feel like keeping up, I rather doubt most others can be bothered either. That may mean the 'deniers' (too broad, but will suffice for here) have succeeded.
But it also means that those who would claim to wish, and have the ways, to rectify matters... have failed.
When you rely on Chicken Little for your science, and then rush with his findings to the Boy Who Cried Wolf to handle the PR, and do it too often, then, like Little Red Riding Hood, it doesn't matter what you take to Big Bad Media. If it isn't palatable enough for their audiences, or spoiled by being rushed, they will eat you instead.
Time for new, less self-interested, and more genuinely motivated and engaging brooms.
Observer - Don't exaggerate climate dangers, scientists warn
Friday, March 16, 2007
It's not just the question. These days it's who is asking it.
DO YOU WANT GREEN SNOOPERS IN YOUR HOME?
No. But how do I know any more that they will be as described here?
No. But how do I know any more that they will be as described here?
They are inheriting it. Maybe we should let them save it as well.
Caption:Me presenting the prizes donated by the local Warhammer shop to the winners, along with a special award from Junkk.com to the young initiative initiator, an antique brass caliper.
Today is Comic Relief day.
So far, so media frenzied.
Frankly, I can take or leave scores of 'celebrities' - some of whom are doubtless sincere, but most of whom have either been told to do it by their bosses or agents, or need to do it to boost flagging careers - mugging to the camera to get the sofa-set to part with cash by phone. I'm sure after the last few weeks it's is all crystal clear and above board, but I'm prepared to bet there are still some admin and handling charges in there.
Meanwhile, in sleepy Ross on Wye, a few days ago a small boy had an idea. And frankly I reckon he has put the whole adult population, from self-centred celebs to sparring pols, to shame.
Because he set up a simple little competition between his mates.
They are all mad for Warhammer, which seems to be a brilliant way to get parents to pay for a 1" character what we used to get in the entire Airfix D-Day recreation set.
Lots and lots of plastic doo-dads which get snapped off and stuck together and painted and played with in strategy games.
And young Dexter's idea was to see who could make the most, and whackiest, creations out of the bits that are left behind in the moulding process (best name heard to date: sprue. But in may be spurl, or Trevor for all I know). One hour, at £1 a character.
My boys made nine. Each. So thanks to this little boy I am now shy £18. Worth every darn penny.
I got wind of it in advance, and for obvious reasons also got quite excited about the notion that kids were doing something a) productive, b) creative, c) worthy and d) fun with reuse. So I flashed around and got the local Warhammer store to sponsor some prizes, which were judged by a panel of proud Dads (not knowing what creation was made by which son).
I'm presenting them tonight. And then I am going to see what I can do to let the Warhammer guys know about it, the media and anyone else who will listen. Because this is worth building upon.
While others talk, these kids just got on and acted for themselves. And had a ball doing it.
Save the children. Save the planet. By and for the children. No adult egos or agendas to be found.
And that... is what it's all about.
Guardian - Last night's TV: Comic Relief does the Apprentice
Telegraph - Priceless gains from spending nothing
Guardian - Comic Relief/The Bits That Aren't Fame Academy: Live
BBC - Comic Relief appeal raises £40.2m
Where there's a... where is that will again?
The price of protection
One of my favourite words... 'SHOULD'. Closely followed by 'COULD'.
Thing is, it is pretty much meaningless without 'WILL' to back it up.
One of my favourite words... 'SHOULD'. Closely followed by 'COULD'.
Thing is, it is pretty much meaningless without 'WILL' to back it up.
When bad deeds make good copy
To the grievance community, it's always someone else's fault
Fine words.
So, what can you... we... do about it?
Or is this just another talking shop industry within an industry with all sides having a vested interest in maintaining the status quo?
Fine words.
So, what can you... we... do about it?
Or is this just another talking shop industry within an industry with all sides having a vested interest in maintaining the status quo?
Bin. And Gone.
Green light given to empty bins every 2 weeks
When there is no trust left, the comments here show the value of ' A Whitehall-funded study...' to convince anyone of anything.
Especially when it is unclear how ever higher rates can be justified in leading to ever fewer services. Unless local authority pensions count as a 'service'.
Yet...'Council chiefs say local taxpayers will have to foot the bill if the targets are missed and fines are applied.'
That's just an attitude that stinks.
When there is no trust left, the comments here show the value of ' A Whitehall-funded study...' to convince anyone of anything.
Especially when it is unclear how ever higher rates can be justified in leading to ever fewer services. Unless local authority pensions count as a 'service'.
Yet...'Council chiefs say local taxpayers will have to foot the bill if the targets are missed and fines are applied.'
That's just an attitude that stinks.
Its a shame to waste
Money 'is wasted'
At least a third of the £555m spent each year on business support by the Regional Development Agencies is claimed to be wasted on administration...
Only a third?
At least a third of the £555m spent each year on business support by the Regional Development Agencies is claimed to be wasted on administration...
Only a third?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Links! Rechts?
A visit from the BBC
Without meaning to suck up too much, I tend to have slightly more faith with those who operate the online 'arm' of a medium. Maybe because there is less chance of establishing a side career simply by being recognisable, those who create online as opposed to onscreen seem, IMHO, to be a bit more concerned with doing their jobs, doing them professionally... and ethically.
However, I must disagree with this: "What we call moderation, readers call censorship."
As with all things, the devil is in the definitions. Trying to be as brief in analysing a pretty complex issue, I'd have to say that if the rules are clearly stated, the moderation should be accepted, if applied... as stated.
The problems arise where you have subjective interpretation. Most blog rules allow you to simply have an opinion and post it up there on screen, so long as it is not 'bad' or 'nasty'. And I think the vast majority can handle that.
Censorship is when a poster follows the rules, but has their post either deleted or edited, it seems, often to suit an agenda held by the guys holding the ball and owning the pitch. And if your remit is to be balanced and objective, if you do that once to often for no good reason, and without explanation, then you deserve to reap the harvest you have sown.
With all the talk of citizen journalism and the financial attraction of free reader vox pops, it is hard to feel too sympathetic to read this: 'The more successful you are at attracting reader responses... the bigger the problem gets', when such responses are being solicited sixteen to the dozen via every outlet.
Especially when the ethics go out the window and the trust is blown.
On BBC Breakfast TV this morning, my opinion was read out, having been sent as requested by the presenters.
Thing is, they took only one phrase out of 3 sentences that as read was the total opposite of what I said.
So in setting out 'some principles for working on the web', I'd recommend not following their broadcast brothers and sisters.
And if they are trying to encourage user participation and comments on their sites, the BBC questioning the need to host those conversations sounds interesting, but almost as if they like the benefits of the content streams, but don't want to worry about the consequences of carrying them.
Which is a total abrogation of accountability and responsibility, and not what 'we' would wish from our public, and publicly-funded broadcaster, surely?
Without meaning to suck up too much, I tend to have slightly more faith with those who operate the online 'arm' of a medium. Maybe because there is less chance of establishing a side career simply by being recognisable, those who create online as opposed to onscreen seem, IMHO, to be a bit more concerned with doing their jobs, doing them professionally... and ethically.
However, I must disagree with this: "What we call moderation, readers call censorship."
As with all things, the devil is in the definitions. Trying to be as brief in analysing a pretty complex issue, I'd have to say that if the rules are clearly stated, the moderation should be accepted, if applied... as stated.
The problems arise where you have subjective interpretation. Most blog rules allow you to simply have an opinion and post it up there on screen, so long as it is not 'bad' or 'nasty'. And I think the vast majority can handle that.
Censorship is when a poster follows the rules, but has their post either deleted or edited, it seems, often to suit an agenda held by the guys holding the ball and owning the pitch. And if your remit is to be balanced and objective, if you do that once to often for no good reason, and without explanation, then you deserve to reap the harvest you have sown.
With all the talk of citizen journalism and the financial attraction of free reader vox pops, it is hard to feel too sympathetic to read this: 'The more successful you are at attracting reader responses... the bigger the problem gets', when such responses are being solicited sixteen to the dozen via every outlet.
Especially when the ethics go out the window and the trust is blown.
On BBC Breakfast TV this morning, my opinion was read out, having been sent as requested by the presenters.
Thing is, they took only one phrase out of 3 sentences that as read was the total opposite of what I said.
So in setting out 'some principles for working on the web', I'd recommend not following their broadcast brothers and sisters.
And if they are trying to encourage user participation and comments on their sites, the BBC questioning the need to host those conversations sounds interesting, but almost as if they like the benefits of the content streams, but don't want to worry about the consequences of carrying them.
Which is a total abrogation of accountability and responsibility, and not what 'we' would wish from our public, and publicly-funded broadcaster, surely?
Train, train, go away.. come right back another day
Millions to pay more for train tickets
I have a possible jaunt to York, solo, this Saturday.
Even with 'gear', I decided the train was a worthy option.
Checked the timings. Not even. Checked the price. Not ever.
I am not sure bumping prices up is quite the way to convert me.
Telegrpah - How to keep the costs down - Ah, theory... don't you just love it.
I have a possible jaunt to York, solo, this Saturday.
Even with 'gear', I decided the train was a worthy option.
Checked the timings. Not even. Checked the price. Not ever.
I am not sure bumping prices up is quite the way to convert me.
Telegrpah - How to keep the costs down - Ah, theory... don't you just love it.
To boldly go.. up in smoke
Adventures can be had closer to home
There seems to be a fine line between an 'adventure' and a 'jolly'.
And a vast gulf between those who enjoy them and those who bear the consequences.
Looking at the banner ad on the right, I can only hope all protagonists are at least saving their 20%.
There seems to be a fine line between an 'adventure' and a 'jolly'.
And a vast gulf between those who enjoy them and those who bear the consequences.
Looking at the banner ad on the right, I can only hope all protagonists are at least saving their 20%.
Is it reality? Or is it Memorex?
I was idly penning a comment on the latest addition to the TV phone fraud scandals on last night's Newsnight blog whilst watching, even more idly, Breakfast TV. Here's what took place a wee while ago:
'As my website has often been called 'Blue Peter on steroids' (I was in my twenties before I knew what 'sticky back plastic' actually was, which is an interesting historical aspect to note as the BBC drifts ever further into commercial, and rocky, waters) this 'episode' caught my attention.
I find the shameless scramble to insincerely express 'regret' for a 'mistake' all too predictable and hollow. Only matched in cringe by what I'm now watching on BBC Breakfast TV as to how 'they' regain 'our' trust.
I just love the way the producer responsible was not yet known a few minutes earlier, but Biddy Baxter is now saying she knows exactly who did it. I await with amused dread how Newswatch will weasel this one.
And nothing like giving the £300 back as it has has now come to light since November, and all is OK again.
Too little, too late, maties.
I think the era of the 0900 (for charity or not, the money I am sure gets divided up first for various admin and handlers, so not actually worrying whether or not the sincere commitment of funds against a chance of winning is being treated honestly is rather typically worrying) number is surely up. It should never have been on the public broadcaster in the first place.
Oh... wait, they have just read out my emailed comment on air. It was:
______
'This has been 'out' how long and 'we don't know which producer was responsible'.
No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an 'honest'... 'mistake'.
Yeah, right. That's the way to rebuild trust.
-----
Well, actually, they only read out one line of the three.
Bearing in mind I have several complaints into the BBC about selective editing and dismissive explanations, guess which one they read out? (Hint: it wasn't the first and it wasn't the last:
Peter Martin of Ross on Wye says:
No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an honest mistake.
That 's a total 180 degree reversal of what I was saying, by selective editting and a different tonal reading!!!! They work in media. They know the difference. They are playing the same game as they were reporting upon piously.
I guess that will teach me to assume they can identify sarcasm and appreciate my point... or was it just a cute way to get a positive out of a total negative?
I repeat: 'That's the way to rebuild trust.' Not.
Good job I have decided to record programmes I comment on. It's amazing the number of technical hitches can happen in edit suites these day.
Makes things a lot easier when you bring it to the attention of those who may be interested in broadcast standards.'
What's the word I'm looking for. Oh, yes...'Gotcha!'.
And here was me thinking that the presenters actually read those emails. Seems like all things these days, there is truth, and then there is what you see on TV.
The irony is, of course, that this was inspired by a piece on production issues taking precedence over professional and ethical practice. Sweet.
Telegraph - Blue Peter says sorry for fake phone-in winner - Can I say sorry and make it all go away if I get a speeding ticket? Or can a 12 year old say sorry and be pardoned if she doesn't put the right paper in the recycling bin? Or... is there an expanding level of double standards at play these day?
Times - Blue Peter admits phone-in fake
Express - Blue Peter says sorry for faking TV winner
Mirror - A BLUE PETER BODGE
Guardian - Blue Peter legend Biddy Baxter 'appalled' by phone-in scandal
Guardian - The phone-in scandal is hardly the first time Blue Peter has
let viewers down
Guardian - Blue Peter is the latest victim of the phone-in witch-hunt
'Witch-hunt' is one of those interesting terms whose origins and subsequent evolution into a descriptive phrase has left me unsure quite what it means.
I'm guessing that it implies that as there were/are no witches, hunting them was/is pointless and unnecessary. Fast forward to the present day.
So because all other aspects of the show are, and have been noble in the extreme, it is therefore quite OK to ignore and let pass taking money under false pretences? Hmmn.
Next thing you will be telling me is that because most BBC news output is of the highest journalistic standards, one shouldn't be concerned that they can edit contributions submitted to turn what has been provided into the complete reverse of what was actually intended, to suit some internal agenda.
Sadly, that is precisely what happened to me yesterday when I made comment on the Blue Peter show. What I wrote and what got read out and aired as from me were totally the opposite.
No wonder no one trusts anything, especially the media, any more.
Guardian - Biddy Baxter 'appalled' by Blue Peter phone-in row
Telegraph - Blue Peter says sorry for fixing competition
Indy - Blue Peter says sorry for fixing phone-in competition
Mail - Blue Peter fixed phone-in competition
Express - Blue Peter apologises over phone-in
Mirror - SORRY? YOU BET
SUN - Phone scandal hits Blue Peter
Guardian - Phone-in trouble for Blue Peter
Mirror - CBEEBIES CHEATS
ADDENDUM:
Though it is undoubted that the nudge-nudge, wide-eyed boys 'n girls will snigger and seek to cite my unfortunate turn of phrase for not making my intentions 'clear' (begging the question what planet they live on if they can't grasp meanings and tonality and punctuation - has none of them ever read a script?), I have decided to see what the munchkins from BBC Complaints can come up with this time:
Feedback was sought with regard to the segment on the Blue Peter issue.
In light of the hundreds of expressions of support for the way it was handled, I would appreciate an explanation as to how my comment, which was not so impressed with the evolving explanations, which was as follows...
'This has been 'out' how long and 'we don't know which producer was responsible'.
No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an 'honest'... 'mistake'.
Yeah, right. That's the way to rebuild trust.'
...came to be edited and read out twice, at 7.48am and 8.43am, thus...
'No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an honest mistake.. '
...which totally reversed what was being conveyed.
If a more positive criticism was sought as balance to the more overtly negative ones that were shared (because I do sympathise with the notion it was weak to be responding only now, and when challenged. And by way of mitigation to simply re-run the competition, this time one hopes ethically, on the 'miraculous discovery' - Ms. Baxter's words - only the other day of data lost way back in November), why doctor and use mine in this way? Was it to buy time for kids to 'forget about it', as Mr. Curry seemed to feel was appropriate?
Is it now the BBC's practice to selectively edit and quote out of context words and/or phrases to suit internal editorial demands, from those submitted in response to requests soliciting feedback?
If that is the case, you may as well make them up and cut out the viewer/listener/reader and save a whole lot of trouble.
It would be awful to learn that the pressurised demands of getting a programme on air would lead to such unethical compromises, wouldn't it?
Observer - BBC faces huge fine in phones scandal - And who, exactly, ends up paying?
Observer - Phone fiasco gives BBC a wake-up call - Having just watched it, I'm not sure Andrew Marr 'interrogated' 'his boss' quite as diligently as one might have hoped, if not expected.
Guardian - Sky is the limit - Indeed
Guardian - Vodafone admits phone-in error
Times - Jowell fury over TV phone-in fiasco
..regulators Ofcom and Icstis, which are investigating six programmes.
Six? Oh no, as Yoda once said...'there is another'. At least.
Mirror - CHANCING ON ICE
Mail - Tough new laws to crackdown on TV phone-ins
Telegraph - Jowell floats tougher laws on TV phone-ins
'Floating' like a lead balloon.
Too little (...tougher laws 'could' be brought in??!).
Too late ('Now Miss Jowell has suggested.. ' after how long?).
When does anyone say anything tangible any more?
Telegraph - Let me tell you about the real phone-in scandal
As someone who believes themselves to have been defrauded by such a show as a contestant, and whose supporters have been as voters (OFCOM & ICSTIS on the case as we speak), I have to suggest the author and even the first few posters may be being a tad smug, if not dismissive of the sanctity of business relationships.
But it does make for a nice, snide article to offset all those awful, boring, tacky ones from journalists who have caught publicly funded (in the case of the BBC) and publicly trus.. (well, let's not accord independent companies more than they deserve) and, in theory, tightly controlled and/or monitored (see bodies above, who do have a bit of explaining of their own to do) TV production outfits cheating their audiences for profit.
So the next time you find anyone takes your money and does not do what they said, and you reasonably believed they would do for it, please bear this in mind.
If it bores you, there is always the remote. Me, I'd prefer those who care, and are tasked to deal with such matters, stuck with breaches of professional conduct and the law until they are resolved, not to the limit of luvvies' attention spans.
Guardian - Ayre to lead Ofcom phone-in inquiry
Thank you for your e-mail regarding 'Breakfast' broadcast on 15 March 2007.
Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in replying. I know our
correspondents appreciate a quick response and I am sorry you have had to
wait on this occasion.
I understand you are unhappy that your e-mail to the programme was read out
incorrectly, thereby inferring the opposite meaning to that which you
intended. I have since been in contact with Deputy Editor, who was in
charge of this particular episode and she has replied as follows:
"This was a genuine mistake resulting from the producer misreading Mr
Martin's e-mail and not a deliberate attempt to doctor our viewers'
opinions. The mistake was made in the initial e-mail summary compiled by
the producer and sent to the presenters and hence was repeated twice during
the programme. Of course we should have read the e-mail more carefully but
I can see how the mistake was made as Mr Martin says the exact opposite of
what he really thinks - which is only revealed by the line "yeah right"
right at the end - so while not excusing it - I can see how the error was
made."
I trust this proves satisfactory. Please be assured that your comments have
been registered and are available to the 'Breakfast' production staff.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact the BBC with your e-mail.
Now, do I accept this? They don't read information thoroughly. Are incapable of assessing tone of voice from the written word and print only what they want to see, regardless of what it may convey. Watch this space.
BBC - TV phone services 'fail viewers' - 'Lapses' they call 'em. Sweet.
'As my website has often been called 'Blue Peter on steroids' (I was in my twenties before I knew what 'sticky back plastic' actually was, which is an interesting historical aspect to note as the BBC drifts ever further into commercial, and rocky, waters) this 'episode' caught my attention.
I find the shameless scramble to insincerely express 'regret' for a 'mistake' all too predictable and hollow. Only matched in cringe by what I'm now watching on BBC Breakfast TV as to how 'they' regain 'our' trust.
I just love the way the producer responsible was not yet known a few minutes earlier, but Biddy Baxter is now saying she knows exactly who did it. I await with amused dread how Newswatch will weasel this one.
And nothing like giving the £300 back as it has has now come to light since November, and all is OK again.
Too little, too late, maties.
I think the era of the 0900 (for charity or not, the money I am sure gets divided up first for various admin and handlers, so not actually worrying whether or not the sincere commitment of funds against a chance of winning is being treated honestly is rather typically worrying) number is surely up. It should never have been on the public broadcaster in the first place.
Oh... wait, they have just read out my emailed comment on air. It was:
______
'This has been 'out' how long and 'we don't know which producer was responsible'.
No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an 'honest'... 'mistake'.
Yeah, right. That's the way to rebuild trust.
-----
Well, actually, they only read out one line of the three.
Bearing in mind I have several complaints into the BBC about selective editing and dismissive explanations, guess which one they read out? (Hint: it wasn't the first and it wasn't the last:
Peter Martin of Ross on Wye says:
No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an honest mistake.
That 's a total 180 degree reversal of what I was saying, by selective editting and a different tonal reading!!!! They work in media. They know the difference. They are playing the same game as they were reporting upon piously.
I guess that will teach me to assume they can identify sarcasm and appreciate my point... or was it just a cute way to get a positive out of a total negative?
I repeat: 'That's the way to rebuild trust.' Not.
Good job I have decided to record programmes I comment on. It's amazing the number of technical hitches can happen in edit suites these day.
Makes things a lot easier when you bring it to the attention of those who may be interested in broadcast standards.'
What's the word I'm looking for. Oh, yes...'Gotcha!'.
And here was me thinking that the presenters actually read those emails. Seems like all things these days, there is truth, and then there is what you see on TV.
The irony is, of course, that this was inspired by a piece on production issues taking precedence over professional and ethical practice. Sweet.
Telegraph - Blue Peter says sorry for fake phone-in winner - Can I say sorry and make it all go away if I get a speeding ticket? Or can a 12 year old say sorry and be pardoned if she doesn't put the right paper in the recycling bin? Or... is there an expanding level of double standards at play these day?
Times - Blue Peter admits phone-in fake
Express - Blue Peter says sorry for faking TV winner
Mirror - A BLUE PETER BODGE
Guardian - Blue Peter legend Biddy Baxter 'appalled' by phone-in scandal
Guardian - The phone-in scandal is hardly the first time Blue Peter has
let viewers down
Guardian - Blue Peter is the latest victim of the phone-in witch-hunt
'Witch-hunt' is one of those interesting terms whose origins and subsequent evolution into a descriptive phrase has left me unsure quite what it means.
I'm guessing that it implies that as there were/are no witches, hunting them was/is pointless and unnecessary. Fast forward to the present day.
So because all other aspects of the show are, and have been noble in the extreme, it is therefore quite OK to ignore and let pass taking money under false pretences? Hmmn.
Next thing you will be telling me is that because most BBC news output is of the highest journalistic standards, one shouldn't be concerned that they can edit contributions submitted to turn what has been provided into the complete reverse of what was actually intended, to suit some internal agenda.
Sadly, that is precisely what happened to me yesterday when I made comment on the Blue Peter show. What I wrote and what got read out and aired as from me were totally the opposite.
No wonder no one trusts anything, especially the media, any more.
Guardian - Biddy Baxter 'appalled' by Blue Peter phone-in row
Telegraph - Blue Peter says sorry for fixing competition
Indy - Blue Peter says sorry for fixing phone-in competition
Mail - Blue Peter fixed phone-in competition
Express - Blue Peter apologises over phone-in
Mirror - SORRY? YOU BET
SUN - Phone scandal hits Blue Peter
Guardian - Phone-in trouble for Blue Peter
Mirror - CBEEBIES CHEATS
ADDENDUM:
Though it is undoubted that the nudge-nudge, wide-eyed boys 'n girls will snigger and seek to cite my unfortunate turn of phrase for not making my intentions 'clear' (begging the question what planet they live on if they can't grasp meanings and tonality and punctuation - has none of them ever read a script?), I have decided to see what the munchkins from BBC Complaints can come up with this time:
Feedback was sought with regard to the segment on the Blue Peter issue.
In light of the hundreds of expressions of support for the way it was handled, I would appreciate an explanation as to how my comment, which was not so impressed with the evolving explanations, which was as follows...
'This has been 'out' how long and 'we don't know which producer was responsible'.
No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an 'honest'... 'mistake'.
Yeah, right. That's the way to rebuild trust.'
...came to be edited and read out twice, at 7.48am and 8.43am, thus...
'No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an honest mistake.. '
...which totally reversed what was being conveyed.
If a more positive criticism was sought as balance to the more overtly negative ones that were shared (because I do sympathise with the notion it was weak to be responding only now, and when challenged. And by way of mitigation to simply re-run the competition, this time one hopes ethically, on the 'miraculous discovery' - Ms. Baxter's words - only the other day of data lost way back in November), why doctor and use mine in this way? Was it to buy time for kids to 'forget about it', as Mr. Curry seemed to feel was appropriate?
Is it now the BBC's practice to selectively edit and quote out of context words and/or phrases to suit internal editorial demands, from those submitted in response to requests soliciting feedback?
If that is the case, you may as well make them up and cut out the viewer/listener/reader and save a whole lot of trouble.
It would be awful to learn that the pressurised demands of getting a programme on air would lead to such unethical compromises, wouldn't it?
Observer - BBC faces huge fine in phones scandal - And who, exactly, ends up paying?
Observer - Phone fiasco gives BBC a wake-up call - Having just watched it, I'm not sure Andrew Marr 'interrogated' 'his boss' quite as diligently as one might have hoped, if not expected.
Guardian - Sky is the limit - Indeed
Guardian - Vodafone admits phone-in error
Times - Jowell fury over TV phone-in fiasco
..regulators Ofcom and Icstis, which are investigating six programmes.
Six? Oh no, as Yoda once said...'there is another'. At least.
Mirror - CHANCING ON ICE
Mail - Tough new laws to crackdown on TV phone-ins
Telegraph - Jowell floats tougher laws on TV phone-ins
'Floating' like a lead balloon.
Too little (...tougher laws 'could' be brought in??!).
Too late ('Now Miss Jowell has suggested.. ' after how long?).
When does anyone say anything tangible any more?
Telegraph - Let me tell you about the real phone-in scandal
As someone who believes themselves to have been defrauded by such a show as a contestant, and whose supporters have been as voters (OFCOM & ICSTIS on the case as we speak), I have to suggest the author and even the first few posters may be being a tad smug, if not dismissive of the sanctity of business relationships.
But it does make for a nice, snide article to offset all those awful, boring, tacky ones from journalists who have caught publicly funded (in the case of the BBC) and publicly trus.. (well, let's not accord independent companies more than they deserve) and, in theory, tightly controlled and/or monitored (see bodies above, who do have a bit of explaining of their own to do) TV production outfits cheating their audiences for profit.
So the next time you find anyone takes your money and does not do what they said, and you reasonably believed they would do for it, please bear this in mind.
If it bores you, there is always the remote. Me, I'd prefer those who care, and are tasked to deal with such matters, stuck with breaches of professional conduct and the law until they are resolved, not to the limit of luvvies' attention spans.
Guardian - Ayre to lead Ofcom phone-in inquiry
Thank you for your e-mail regarding 'Breakfast' broadcast on 15 March 2007.
Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in replying. I know our
correspondents appreciate a quick response and I am sorry you have had to
wait on this occasion.
I understand you are unhappy that your e-mail to the programme was read out
incorrectly, thereby inferring the opposite meaning to that which you
intended. I have since been in contact with Deputy Editor, who was in
charge of this particular episode and she has replied as follows:
"This was a genuine mistake resulting from the producer misreading Mr
Martin's e-mail and not a deliberate attempt to doctor our viewers'
opinions. The mistake was made in the initial e-mail summary compiled by
the producer and sent to the presenters and hence was repeated twice during
the programme. Of course we should have read the e-mail more carefully but
I can see how the mistake was made as Mr Martin says the exact opposite of
what he really thinks - which is only revealed by the line "yeah right"
right at the end - so while not excusing it - I can see how the error was
made."
I trust this proves satisfactory. Please be assured that your comments have
been registered and are available to the 'Breakfast' production staff.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact the BBC with your e-mail.
Now, do I accept this? They don't read information thoroughly. Are incapable of assessing tone of voice from the written word and print only what they want to see, regardless of what it may convey. Watch this space.
BBC - TV phone services 'fail viewers' - 'Lapses' they call 'em. Sweet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)