An interesting view on the recent Copenhagen Climate conference..
What message, and whose, from Copenhagen?
Though it might be noted that even the author of this, in my view more nuanced and balanced view to almost all partisan reports I have been exposed/subjected to so far, falls a tad short on DOING, too.
Junkk.com promotes fun, reward-based e-practices, sharing oodles of info in objective, balanced ways. But we do have personal opinions, too! Hence this slightly ‘off of site, top of mind' blog by Junkk Male Peter. Hopefully still more ‘concerned mates’ than 'do this... or else' nannies, with critiques seen as constructive or of a more eyebrow-twitching ‘Oh, really?!' variety. Little that’s green can be viewed only in black and white.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
2 comments:
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.
My eyebrows shot up a couple of inches when I read that the six key messages - as in the main outputs from the conference - were "drafted largely before the conference started by the organising committee, sifting through research that they saw emerging around the world - some of it peer-reviewed, some of it not - and interpreting it for a political audience."
ReplyDeleteSeems rather an interesting way of doing things - determine outputs first, hold the conference, and then deliver the outputs you had thought up earlier, ignoring any additional content from the conference.
Or am I simply being overtly cynical?
Well, when folk with brains actually read stuff behind the headlines, it can get more... 'interesting'.
ReplyDeleteAnd certainly not helpful when rather blatant disconnects between fact, reality and reporting crop up. Especially by omission or agenda-enhanced 'interpretation'.
I'll have to seek it out, but there was a clear set of headlines in the MSM recently suggesting total consensus on some pretty dire predicted outcomes, based on a press release which, when I read it, has a stonking great disclaimer at the end saying it didn't actually represent the views of all present.
Er... Huh?
ps: Is it my imagination, or is this entry box now spell-checking as one writes? If so, kudos Blogger!