I usually these days avoid anything with the words 'climate change' or 'experts' in the headline,
Climate change experts 'lose faith' in renewable technology
...and this has both, but it also mentions renewables, so my interest was piqued.
On balance, I fear this rather makes my point that if one concedes the point that it is the public who at the end will make the difference (they decide on products and many vote, so that sorts out business and government), such lack of coherence and consistency from 'experts', especially those big upped and trashed daily within a very short period by the media and their activist story sources, is hardly likely to help much.
I read this piece.
However I couldn't be bothered to read, much less weigh in on the rest on the page... of a minority publication's blog, read and argued over by what I doubt is more than a few hundred.
However, the first might suggest some avenues of consideration..
Guardian - Nearly a billion people worldwide are starving, UN agency warns
Guardian - Cyberspace has buried its head in a cesspit of climate change gibberish
Guardian - Press the panic button
However, it does seem that some are making a good living out of their niche. I wonder what they spend it on? Well, other than flights to the USA 'while they can'.
Addendum
Gaurdian - It's official: China is the world's bigger polluter
Gaurdian - How to take action on climate change
No comments:
Post a Comment
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.