I simply need to know what I can DO, sensibly, in the UK, to help.
I have near given up on our media.
Streaming footage from helicopters trawling about showing SOS signs atop buildings, having evidently made a call on what they might mean, yesterday pushed me to irony overload.
Meanwhile endless 'experts' guessing what 'could' have happened and 'may' yet, across a variety of issues.
The time for such self-serving ratings-driven analysis or, worse, tribal issue debating, is not now.
[Addendum - at risk of becoming part of the blame culture I criticise, this nonetheless is an interesting tally to show what has so disappointed me]
I am not sure if money is what is needed, but if it is, convince me that it goes to where it will do most good, and will get deployed fast, and the online DD is created.
But what I do have in the loft is stuff 'for a rainy day' or my kids' futures. These I can buy again in my own sweet time.
Blankets, tents... if these can be got to an airfield and arrive in Japan to do some good in 24hrs, just let me know.
But spare me the utter horse manure disaster porn I am currently getting from near all of our sorry media.
Day 4 - I am today trying to put together a newsletter to inspire folk into doing something productive locally, as I am trying to do via our local paper. One thing is trying to assess what best defines 'humanitarian needs'. It seems tents may not be it. OK. Food is mentioned more. I am not sure about the logistical wisdom of sending a can from here, so one does need to be guided by those more experienced. However the international/national media remain less than helpful in this regard.
Maybe money to a charity is best. But choose, and invest, with care.
17/03/11
Well, it has almost been a week now, and while things have certainly not settled down (anything but) it may soon be time to move on. I'll be moving this to the home page for a while, and leave the blogs free for, well new blogs.
Some have asked me why I have not indulged in the ongoing 'discussions' regarding the nuclear situation. I have actually addressed it on twitter, but even there gave up. There is no point in endless speculation. Something very bad happened the other side of the globe and, with luck, no worse to follow. All I know is that the Japanese are a generous nation, and have never stinted in helping others. Now it's their turn. May we find the best way(s) to do this.
******************************************
STOP PRESS - 20/03/11
The author of the piece above, who lives in Japan, has kindly responded to an invitation of mine to share what he thinks is needed most, and when, with most reasonable explanations as to why....
I'm waiting for things to clear enough to allow me to go north and participate in the clean-up effort. In the meantime, I have donated to Second Harvest Japan, who are getting supplies to stricken areas.
http://www.2hj.org/index.php/get_involved/donate_money
What I like about Second Harvest, is that because their supplies are given by donation, the money is used for transportation and such, meaning that 1000 Yen (about $10USD) can supply (by their estimate, admittedly) 10 times that in supplies.
Supplies are important because, as I understand it, the main post-quake cause of death is looking to by hypothermia (due to lack of fuel) and lack of medicine.
For the more conservative, the Japanese Red Cross is also a good bet. People can donate through the link provided by Google: http://www.google.com/crisisresponse/japanquake2011.html
That page also contains good advice on how to help (Google has a presence in Japan, so they're not just blowing smoke).
******************************************
ADDENDA - (as I get 'em, I'll add 'em - feel free to suggest any more).
Disaster Japan
Google Home Page
Google Search
More Google resources
Gear diary
Shelterbox
Red Cross - specific URL kindly provided by a fellow commenter - http://www.redcross.org.uk/Donate-Now/Make-a-single-donation/Japan-Tsunami-Appeal
firstgiving.com - Note: not vetted, but has been passed on
Quakebook - I'm a bit dubious about 'arty'-based donation efforts, as the %ages that come in vs. get passed on can be variable, but some interesting new aspects are presented, esp. in comments, to make this piece worth sharing.
Not saying I agree with it, but a rather off the wall view
A bit of, necessary, light(er) relief.
Does Japan even NEED donations? Another left field post to digest My head aches.
A graphic indication of the scale of the problem.
Not really into disaster porn, but this shows the scale of what took place. This wave was out to sea. Imagine it when making landfall.
Graphic art in support. Nor all great, but some genius.
All a bit circular, but the latest (after a year's absence) Junkk Newsletter has now gone out. I am hoping to at least inspire/be part of any efforts locally that can be made.
Speaking of priorities, in case you were thinking the world has gone a bit mad....
Dear BBC blog contributor,
Thank you for contributing to a BBC blog. Unfortunately we've had to edit your comment below because it contravened one of our House Rules.
Comments on the BBC blogs will be removed if they contain links to other websites which break our Editorial Guidelines. The URL(s) which failed were: http://www.redcross.org.uk/Donate-Now/Make-a-single-donation/Japan-Tsunami-Appeal. For more information, please visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/moderation.shtml#l
Regards,
BBC Central Communities team
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/
URL of content (now edited):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/blog142/F20708486?thread=8119961&post=107299837#p107299837
Posting:
'...our Science editor, will update us on the situation at the Japanese quake-stricken nuclear plant where radiation levels are now at a level harmful to human health.'
So.... still studiously not worrying too much about that earthquake/tsunami thing that was also involved. Had a bit of an impact too.
Not sure if its the best, but many have told me it's up there: [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator - the Red Cross one... unsuitable?????]
Meanwhile, it's nice to know the BBC is sending as many folk as possible over there to fill rooms and consumer resources, mainly to talk to folk they just left back here.
Guessing the carbon-saving thing is on hold too.
ps: Unverified, but credible, bearing in mind a disaster relief URL was 'unsuitable' whilst their pet fun run one was being pushed 24/7:
@OldHoborn - Remember, without £119,946 donated by YOU to #comicrelief, the "Black Association of Women" would struggle for funds
Showing posts with label ALARMIST REPORTING. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ALARMIST REPORTING. Show all posts
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Friday, July 03, 2009
QUOTE OF THE DAY - So it must be true
Climate change is shrinking sheep
On the brighter side.... smaller sheep: less methane? Ain't evolution wunnerful?
"But it's too early to say if, in 100 years, we will have chihuahuas herding pocket-sized sheep."
However, on past and present evidence, I am prepared to bet there may be an attempt.
On the brighter side.... smaller sheep: less methane? Ain't evolution wunnerful?
"But it's too early to say if, in 100 years, we will have chihuahuas herding pocket-sized sheep."
However, on past and present evidence, I am prepared to bet there may be an attempt.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Sometimes it's best to let others, and facts, speak for themsleves
But then..
Telegraph - Prince Charles: 100 months to save the world
Telegraph - Britain has only four days of gas left in reserves
Telegraph - Climate change rhetoric spirals out of control
Telegraph - Climate change: When evidence battles with belief
Doesn't make it any easier to come to a conclusion, though:(
I fear in just these four I see all the problems, of message, messengers and media writ large.
With folk like me feeling ever so slightly none the wiser.
Telegraph - Prince Charles: 100 months to save the world
Telegraph - Britain has only four days of gas left in reserves
Telegraph - Climate change rhetoric spirals out of control
Telegraph - Climate change: When evidence battles with belief
Doesn't make it any easier to come to a conclusion, though:(
I fear in just these four I see all the problems, of message, messengers and media writ large.
With folk like me feeling ever so slightly none the wiser.
Friday, February 13, 2009
As some around here have been saying...
'Apocalyptic climate predictions' mislead the public, say experts
Met Office scientists fear distorted climate change claims could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions
I am no expert, but... D'uh.
New Scientist - NEW - Scientists losing war of words over climate change - the posts in reply rather make a few points.. sadly.
ADDENDUM - 13/03/07
It seems to be sinking in that there is a problem. This just in from The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM - who are not going to get many visitors from the URL they offer)
The UK’s recent cold weather has highlighted that the often interchangeable use of the terms ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ leads to public misunderstanding.
Misinterpretation of the suggestive term ‘global warming’ has resulted in some people to propose that cold weather events disproves climate change is happening. Therefore CIWEM is calling for greater clarity in the use of these terms by scientists, environmentalists, other professionals and the media so that the general public is able to distinguish between climate change, global warming and localised, short-term weather events.
Global warming describes the increase in average global temperatures due to rising levels of greenhouse gases, whilst climate change refers to regional conditions such as rain, drought and storm events that relate to a long-term change in the Earth’s climate.
Although the UK is suffering from the coldest winter in 30 years, the current weather is entirely consistent with climate change predictions. In pre-industrial days such extreme cold weather occurred every five years but, with climate change, global temperatures have risen, meaning that we now experience it only every 20 years. And in contrast, China’s drought has left more than four million people without drinking water and 24 million acres of crops damaged; parts of Australia are suffering massive flooding, whilst the south’s drought has aggravated the terrible bush fires that have killed over 130 people; Argentina is suffering the worst drought for 50 years; and Israel suffered the driest January since records began.
CIWEM asks whether the term ‘climate change’ is significantly descriptive of the predicted extreme global weather patterns that we will experience. CIWEM puts forward that more dramatic and resonant terms such as ‘climate churn’ or ‘climate convulsion’ may help people to understand that this will not be a gentle transition which can be ignored.
Nick Reeves, Executive Director of CIWEM, says:
“To apply the term ‘global warming’ to explain all extreme weather events including freezing temperatures, snow and heavy rainfall is careless and will only feed the scepticism of the public and some sections of the media that average temperatures aren’t rising and that the climate isn’t changing. As scientists have predicted we are experiencing, simultaneously, extreme weather events around the world, which are causing unprecedented drought conditions, water scarcity, melting of the polar ice caps, rising sea levels, coastal erosion and flooding. Not only is this evidence of climate change but a more serious problem that should be more accurately described as climate convulsion.”
While I have some sympathy with the dilemma, and applaud the attempt, I have to say that after 'Global warming' and then 'climate change', moving to ‘climate churn’ or ‘climate convulsion’ might not quite suffice. There is a lot of baggage to undo, and a few too many who will be trotting out such new buzz words are those who loaded that baggage on the cart in the first place. Message vs. messengers again.
Met Office scientists fear distorted climate change claims could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions
I am no expert, but... D'uh.
New Scientist - NEW - Scientists losing war of words over climate change - the posts in reply rather make a few points.. sadly.
ADDENDUM - 13/03/07
It seems to be sinking in that there is a problem. This just in from The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM - who are not going to get many visitors from the URL they offer)
The UK’s recent cold weather has highlighted that the often interchangeable use of the terms ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ leads to public misunderstanding.
Misinterpretation of the suggestive term ‘global warming’ has resulted in some people to propose that cold weather events disproves climate change is happening. Therefore CIWEM is calling for greater clarity in the use of these terms by scientists, environmentalists, other professionals and the media so that the general public is able to distinguish between climate change, global warming and localised, short-term weather events.
Global warming describes the increase in average global temperatures due to rising levels of greenhouse gases, whilst climate change refers to regional conditions such as rain, drought and storm events that relate to a long-term change in the Earth’s climate.
Although the UK is suffering from the coldest winter in 30 years, the current weather is entirely consistent with climate change predictions. In pre-industrial days such extreme cold weather occurred every five years but, with climate change, global temperatures have risen, meaning that we now experience it only every 20 years. And in contrast, China’s drought has left more than four million people without drinking water and 24 million acres of crops damaged; parts of Australia are suffering massive flooding, whilst the south’s drought has aggravated the terrible bush fires that have killed over 130 people; Argentina is suffering the worst drought for 50 years; and Israel suffered the driest January since records began.
CIWEM asks whether the term ‘climate change’ is significantly descriptive of the predicted extreme global weather patterns that we will experience. CIWEM puts forward that more dramatic and resonant terms such as ‘climate churn’ or ‘climate convulsion’ may help people to understand that this will not be a gentle transition which can be ignored.
Nick Reeves, Executive Director of CIWEM, says:
“To apply the term ‘global warming’ to explain all extreme weather events including freezing temperatures, snow and heavy rainfall is careless and will only feed the scepticism of the public and some sections of the media that average temperatures aren’t rising and that the climate isn’t changing. As scientists have predicted we are experiencing, simultaneously, extreme weather events around the world, which are causing unprecedented drought conditions, water scarcity, melting of the polar ice caps, rising sea levels, coastal erosion and flooding. Not only is this evidence of climate change but a more serious problem that should be more accurately described as climate convulsion.”
While I have some sympathy with the dilemma, and applaud the attempt, I have to say that after 'Global warming' and then 'climate change', moving to ‘climate churn’ or ‘climate convulsion’ might not quite suffice. There is a lot of baggage to undo, and a few too many who will be trotting out such new buzz words are those who loaded that baggage on the cart in the first place. Message vs. messengers again.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Have press card, will travel (to save planet)
BERG BENCHLESS
Now I have just about got used to endless celebs and their camp following 'journalistic' mates raising 'awareness' of climate change in their sweetly ironic way by helicoptering up to a snow-covered place at the first crack of a calving glacier or to see if saying 'boo' to a polar bear will stress it out... a bit more.
Or getting in a boat which, one presumes, uses some form of internal combustion power ('No dear, you can't put your settee on the funnel as that's where the poisonous gasses belch from when Capt'n Fishstocks yells 'Hypocrisy Ho!'). They have gathered that kayaks don't work too well, especially when trying to make a point.
But I am still trying to get my jaw off the floor as I watch my BBC Breakfast News about a couple who used their Tesco ClubCard Miles to buy Business Class flights.
Hey, whatever keeps the ratings up in Sevenoaks, I guess.
However, what got me, immediately, (and, to be fair a few readers, who whose comments were jokily referred to mid-way) was that what made this advertisement for the 'buy more stuff' scheme by a major private retailer a 'good thing' to share was, apparently, the fact that the couple accrued these points by collecting recycling waste.
Now, I really endorse the notion of reward-based eco-schemes (so long as they make sense.. and work) as opposed to the usual fine or hairshirt stuff, but for the love of Gaia could they not have found someone... anyone... who did not negate the whole effect, and hence point in such a crass manner?
Apparently it was offset. Now, I am no expert, but I am pretty sure the carbon gain of recycling some plastic bottles for 12 weeks is probably going to struggle to cope with what pops out the exhaust of a 747.
I wonder if it was the same one that ferried the bouffant and crew to New York for a quick slot on how the news in America is made. Don't they have guys over there to do that?
And now, as I type, It seems that shrimps in some bay up North are vanishing on account of... the salt water being diluted by all the rain.
There was a time when I would have swallowed that hook, line and mayonnaise, but now, without a serious scientist or two elsewhere agreeing, as far as I am concerned this is more likely due to over-fishing due to ever-increasing demands for prawn-cocktails as such the BBC canteen expands with more staff to address the news 'needs' of a growing population.
Times - Honeymoon takes off with recycled Air Miles -
True eco-champions. Where did they honeymoon? Antarctica? Probably not as it's packed with celeb luvvies and media camp followers raising 'awareness'. Besides the 'irony', anyone calculated 60,000 items recycled vs. 2 on Biz Class in Jumbo, Co2-wise? Or doesn't that matter?
BBC - Recycling litter funds honeymoon
ADDENDUM:
Funny who things turn out. I used the above as a mild example of how perceptions matter on a thread about 'International conferences....' (not by me, I might add) which started a long time ago on a, how to say, 'serious' 'list'. Look how it went:
Me:
I have followed the discussions on this thus far with interest.
It is obvious the balance is never going to be easy.
Take today.
A couple is lauded (rightly) in the media for taking advantage of a
pro-active, positive, incentive-driven supermarket scheme (and well
done them) to reduce waste and encourage recycling.
Their reward is 'points', which they choose to redeem for... two
Business Class seats to an exotic location.
Which aspect did my more 'climate optimistic' readers pick up upon?
As the topic did come up, do any experts present have a ballpark of
how 60,000 pieces of mixed recyclate would stack up, carbon-wise,
versus the consequences of their flight?
The issue of offsetting did come up and, though I fear the principle
is more important here, facts on mitigation would still be helpful.
To which I got an 'off list' reply (funny how the list encourages debate) from a person how might actually know:
Gr8 stuff (privately – as i hesitate to make an ‘expert’ pronouncement here!
My guesstimate though – between you and me – is that the 60,000 pieces will be a few 100kg of CO2e
The exotic flight – perhaps as much as 10 tonnes CO2e
So yes – 100 to one against!
To which I replied (off list - I know a lost cause when it presents):
Ta for the guesstimate. Mine was a fair bit higher, but I figured the balance was not that optimal.
I do have a bit of a bee in my bonnet on those talking a lot actually doing very little, and racking up a lot of bad enviROI whilst engaging in little more than that which they seek to scold others for doing: earning a living. I don't deny them the opportunity, but do question the multiplicity of standards.
And if those don't play well with my 'hood, then my kids' futures on this planet are not being served well. IMHO:)
I then made a mistake. I added:
At least I didn't get the usual flood of 'How dare you use this list for such things!!!'
Well, yet.
'Yet'... soon came:
All a bit of a no-brainer, I would have though - but obviously not.
Recycling materials is not an excuse for profligate energy use elsewhere. The simple message is that we avoid all energy waste or the game is lost. Flying to exotic locations is, sadly perhaps, a luxury that we can no longer afford. There are a lot of interesting places in Europe, accessible by train at a lower energy cost than a flight to NY and back.
Its not about balance, its about doing things differently. One saving does not justify another case of waste; that's plainly absurd. Clearly the Government have done a poor job in communicating the problem if such inane comments are still made.
I didn't comment on xx's original email as xx is a colleague and a friend but the plethora of comments deserve a reply. Much of what is achieved at conferences lies in the social interaction that happens between sessions. That's where contacts are made and useful networks established. Video conferencing certainly has a role but it does not replace every aspect of human contact - except amongst the socially challenged. Of course there are unnecessary jollies, conducted every day, but there are also events that require human contact where the nuances of the other delegates can be seen. That is how human communication evolved and it's not going to change any time soon. Events that deal with issues such as climate change, where networks develop that can begin to make more effective change, are sensible uses of travel - and xx did point out that he's not flying. Flying off to exotic locations is, I would have thought, an example of senseless and selfish use of travel.
This is more what I expected.
Clearly the Government have done a poor job in communicating the problem if such inane comments are still made.
I wonder if he meant mine, ad hominem, or the fact that the BBC shared this story as OK because one offset the other. In which cases maybe the government, its national broadcaster and others who would claim to 'know better' are doing a p*ss poor job, I agree.
And I guess Bali is out in future? Then again, getting UK delegates to the US and vice versa will require a nifty train, too.
However, as these guys want 'my sort' out of the club, it is best not to ask in open forum... er... list.
I do fear I touched a raw nerve.
Plus recalling a few past attempts of mine - to point out that when some folk use 'us' as a separate entity to a 'them', the latter might find themselves less sympathetic to the spirit of 'Don't do as I say...' based solely on a bit of perceived 'green cred' - generating more than a couple of old boys muttering about who should be in the club.
Shame then that they are not open to other views, then. Might explain the results generated at a few conferences (very few; I go on my own dime) I have been at where the public and their daily concerns and perceptions are poorly represented.
Sadly, he was also unable to help with my substantive question either. Funny how one willing and able to do so did... off list.
I now have another acronym: IYANWUYAU 'If you are not with us...'
And sadly, I cam mostly apply it to those who should be courting such as me, not driving us away by being incestuous, arrogant, know-all numpties.
Now I have just about got used to endless celebs and their camp following 'journalistic' mates raising 'awareness' of climate change in their sweetly ironic way by helicoptering up to a snow-covered place at the first crack of a calving glacier or to see if saying 'boo' to a polar bear will stress it out... a bit more.
Or getting in a boat which, one presumes, uses some form of internal combustion power ('No dear, you can't put your settee on the funnel as that's where the poisonous gasses belch from when Capt'n Fishstocks yells 'Hypocrisy Ho!'). They have gathered that kayaks don't work too well, especially when trying to make a point.
But I am still trying to get my jaw off the floor as I watch my BBC Breakfast News about a couple who used their Tesco ClubCard Miles to buy Business Class flights.
Hey, whatever keeps the ratings up in Sevenoaks, I guess.
However, what got me, immediately, (and, to be fair a few readers, who whose comments were jokily referred to mid-way) was that what made this advertisement for the 'buy more stuff' scheme by a major private retailer a 'good thing' to share was, apparently, the fact that the couple accrued these points by collecting recycling waste.
Now, I really endorse the notion of reward-based eco-schemes (so long as they make sense.. and work) as opposed to the usual fine or hairshirt stuff, but for the love of Gaia could they not have found someone... anyone... who did not negate the whole effect, and hence point in such a crass manner?
Apparently it was offset. Now, I am no expert, but I am pretty sure the carbon gain of recycling some plastic bottles for 12 weeks is probably going to struggle to cope with what pops out the exhaust of a 747.
I wonder if it was the same one that ferried the bouffant and crew to New York for a quick slot on how the news in America is made. Don't they have guys over there to do that?
And now, as I type, It seems that shrimps in some bay up North are vanishing on account of... the salt water being diluted by all the rain.
There was a time when I would have swallowed that hook, line and mayonnaise, but now, without a serious scientist or two elsewhere agreeing, as far as I am concerned this is more likely due to over-fishing due to ever-increasing demands for prawn-cocktails as such the BBC canteen expands with more staff to address the news 'needs' of a growing population.
Times - Honeymoon takes off with recycled Air Miles -
True eco-champions. Where did they honeymoon? Antarctica? Probably not as it's packed with celeb luvvies and media camp followers raising 'awareness'. Besides the 'irony', anyone calculated 60,000 items recycled vs. 2 on Biz Class in Jumbo, Co2-wise? Or doesn't that matter?
BBC - Recycling litter funds honeymoon
ADDENDUM:
Funny who things turn out. I used the above as a mild example of how perceptions matter on a thread about 'International conferences....' (not by me, I might add) which started a long time ago on a, how to say, 'serious' 'list'. Look how it went:
Me:
I have followed the discussions on this thus far with interest.
It is obvious the balance is never going to be easy.
Take today.
A couple is lauded (rightly) in the media for taking advantage of a
pro-active, positive, incentive-driven supermarket scheme (and well
done them) to reduce waste and encourage recycling.
Their reward is 'points', which they choose to redeem for... two
Business Class seats to an exotic location.
Which aspect did my more 'climate optimistic' readers pick up upon?
As the topic did come up, do any experts present have a ballpark of
how 60,000 pieces of mixed recyclate would stack up, carbon-wise,
versus the consequences of their flight?
The issue of offsetting did come up and, though I fear the principle
is more important here, facts on mitigation would still be helpful.
To which I got an 'off list' reply (funny how the list encourages debate) from a person how might actually know:
Gr8 stuff (privately – as i hesitate to make an ‘expert’ pronouncement here!
My guesstimate though – between you and me – is that the 60,000 pieces will be a few 100kg of CO2e
The exotic flight – perhaps as much as 10 tonnes CO2e
So yes – 100 to one against!
To which I replied (off list - I know a lost cause when it presents):
Ta for the guesstimate. Mine was a fair bit higher, but I figured the balance was not that optimal.
I do have a bit of a bee in my bonnet on those talking a lot actually doing very little, and racking up a lot of bad enviROI whilst engaging in little more than that which they seek to scold others for doing: earning a living. I don't deny them the opportunity, but do question the multiplicity of standards.
And if those don't play well with my 'hood, then my kids' futures on this planet are not being served well. IMHO:)
I then made a mistake. I added:
At least I didn't get the usual flood of 'How dare you use this list for such things!!!'
Well, yet.
'Yet'... soon came:
All a bit of a no-brainer, I would have though - but obviously not.
Recycling materials is not an excuse for profligate energy use elsewhere. The simple message is that we avoid all energy waste or the game is lost. Flying to exotic locations is, sadly perhaps, a luxury that we can no longer afford. There are a lot of interesting places in Europe, accessible by train at a lower energy cost than a flight to NY and back.
Its not about balance, its about doing things differently. One saving does not justify another case of waste; that's plainly absurd. Clearly the Government have done a poor job in communicating the problem if such inane comments are still made.
I didn't comment on xx's original email as xx is a colleague and a friend but the plethora of comments deserve a reply. Much of what is achieved at conferences lies in the social interaction that happens between sessions. That's where contacts are made and useful networks established. Video conferencing certainly has a role but it does not replace every aspect of human contact - except amongst the socially challenged. Of course there are unnecessary jollies, conducted every day, but there are also events that require human contact where the nuances of the other delegates can be seen. That is how human communication evolved and it's not going to change any time soon. Events that deal with issues such as climate change, where networks develop that can begin to make more effective change, are sensible uses of travel - and xx did point out that he's not flying. Flying off to exotic locations is, I would have thought, an example of senseless and selfish use of travel.
This is more what I expected.
Clearly the Government have done a poor job in communicating the problem if such inane comments are still made.
I wonder if he meant mine, ad hominem, or the fact that the BBC shared this story as OK because one offset the other. In which cases maybe the government, its national broadcaster and others who would claim to 'know better' are doing a p*ss poor job, I agree.
And I guess Bali is out in future? Then again, getting UK delegates to the US and vice versa will require a nifty train, too.
However, as these guys want 'my sort' out of the club, it is best not to ask in open forum... er... list.
I do fear I touched a raw nerve.
Plus recalling a few past attempts of mine - to point out that when some folk use 'us' as a separate entity to a 'them', the latter might find themselves less sympathetic to the spirit of 'Don't do as I say...' based solely on a bit of perceived 'green cred' - generating more than a couple of old boys muttering about who should be in the club.
Shame then that they are not open to other views, then. Might explain the results generated at a few conferences (very few; I go on my own dime) I have been at where the public and their daily concerns and perceptions are poorly represented.
Sadly, he was also unable to help with my substantive question either. Funny how one willing and able to do so did... off list.
I now have another acronym: IYANWUYAU 'If you are not with us...'
And sadly, I cam mostly apply it to those who should be courting such as me, not driving us away by being incestuous, arrogant, know-all numpties.
Friday, September 26, 2008
How to spoil a Friday
Sometimes it's good to share. This is not one of those times.
Pandora: BBC faces Ofcom row over interview edits
I share this not to give ammo to those would use it in defence of a rather extreme climatically optimistic view (which it will, even though it is just about reporting standards), but in the hope that the Nixonian notion of 'don't get caught' rarely applies. If you don't want your dirty laundry hung out for all to see... don't soil it.
If (it still looks in the realms of "what might be", but the Indy is not a great fan of those from a CO viewpoint and has chosen to share) this pans out as billed I must again raise my eyes to the heavens at the sheer, unprofessional ineptitude of those who are allowing personal or corporate agenda corrupt the spirit of objective information sharing.
And 'But Ch4 did it first!' won't cut it outside of my licence fee demand.
Who are these folk? How are they paid? Why? Is there ever an accounting?
Just lay all it all out honestly and let the public decide. The minute you start figuring you know better, then try and rig it, and then get caught, it just makes everything a whole lot worse to try and explain for those working along, steadily sharing what we know, what we think we know and what we don't. And then what we think might help now, just in case.
It will be interesting to see if this escalates as billed. If proven it has to. If not, then it will rumble along anyway I'm sure. But it would have never been an issue if the desire in some quarters to 'enhance the narrative' had not overcome professional standards.
Thank heavens I do not have to pay... for.. all... th..
Oh.
Daily Mail - QED. BBC investigated after peer says climate change programme was biased 'one-sided polemic' - That's how many million choking up their meat & two veg in suburbia?
Broadcast - BBC2 show ignites contributor row
Gaurdian - NEW - The battle caused by Climate Wars
For some reason, the author has posted this in the Guardian (I usually enjoy having a debate there, but on this issue it's really not worth it. I've just left one where 'they' are asking why someone who might have a different view to the group is allowed on, and to voice an opinion. Bless):
I must say it makes for an interesting read, even if some links to 'a bloke's blog' seems rather... unconvincing in support.
I must say on first reading I was unclear (great communicators that they are: 'Maybe that's our fault for not being clearer' - that's what £3.5B gets you, I guess) whether he was saying the climate debate was a done deal, or it wasn't..'...even if the scientific consensus is that global warming is a reality', '..makes clear, it is that there is still a furious debate going on out there.'
As to the rest, with bitter irony it mostly makes this committed environmental campaigner weep... or feel like buying a Hummer.
Pandora: BBC faces Ofcom row over interview edits
I share this not to give ammo to those would use it in defence of a rather extreme climatically optimistic view (which it will, even though it is just about reporting standards), but in the hope that the Nixonian notion of 'don't get caught' rarely applies. If you don't want your dirty laundry hung out for all to see... don't soil it.
If (it still looks in the realms of "what might be", but the Indy is not a great fan of those from a CO viewpoint and has chosen to share) this pans out as billed I must again raise my eyes to the heavens at the sheer, unprofessional ineptitude of those who are allowing personal or corporate agenda corrupt the spirit of objective information sharing.
And 'But Ch4 did it first!' won't cut it outside of my licence fee demand.
Who are these folk? How are they paid? Why? Is there ever an accounting?
Just lay all it all out honestly and let the public decide. The minute you start figuring you know better, then try and rig it, and then get caught, it just makes everything a whole lot worse to try and explain for those working along, steadily sharing what we know, what we think we know and what we don't. And then what we think might help now, just in case.
It will be interesting to see if this escalates as billed. If proven it has to. If not, then it will rumble along anyway I'm sure. But it would have never been an issue if the desire in some quarters to 'enhance the narrative' had not overcome professional standards.
Thank heavens I do not have to pay... for.. all... th..
Oh.
Daily Mail - QED. BBC investigated after peer says climate change programme was biased 'one-sided polemic' - That's how many million choking up their meat & two veg in suburbia?
Broadcast - BBC2 show ignites contributor row
Gaurdian - NEW - The battle caused by Climate Wars
For some reason, the author has posted this in the Guardian (I usually enjoy having a debate there, but on this issue it's really not worth it. I've just left one where 'they' are asking why someone who might have a different view to the group is allowed on, and to voice an opinion. Bless):
I must say it makes for an interesting read, even if some links to 'a bloke's blog' seems rather... unconvincing in support.
I must say on first reading I was unclear (great communicators that they are: 'Maybe that's our fault for not being clearer' - that's what £3.5B gets you, I guess) whether he was saying the climate debate was a done deal, or it wasn't..'...even if the scientific consensus is that global warming is a reality', '..makes clear, it is that there is still a furious debate going on out there.'
As to the rest, with bitter irony it mostly makes this committed environmental campaigner weep... or feel like buying a Hummer.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
...5...4...3...2....1...then what?
Recently I have been rather bombarded by PR, reports, and then reports about PR, and then stories about reports about PR about a movement behind our race having 100 months to a 'tipping point'.
As this is all a bit close to the whole climate change 'discussions' I have wearied of, I have tended to ignore it all as, rather typically, we have ended up with two camps, 'pro' & 'con', though I am not exactly sure, if they are either, of what they are advocating, or why.
If it's a hurry up call, well OK, but history has kind of shown me that the chicken little approach seems to be brought out a tad too often, and a tad too precisely, and often to serve all sorts of other agendas.
What concerns is that, though this is dealing in matters of years (well, a decade), it is still a) a bit far off for most folk to get their heads around (especially pols fighting for their jobs and families their finances) and b) once (if?) we get that far and at 9 years, 11 months and 30 days if the measure is missed for any reason (and there could be many), it will be yet another (and there have been a few), for the more vocal climate optimists to add another alarmist scalp to their rather one-sided view of what's what.
Thing is, outside of some rather, how to put it, usual suspectesque outlets, this essentially 'end-of-the world is nigh' prediction hasn't exactly yet set the major media or many 'official' outlets alight as yet. And while I am more than concerned, self evidently, the origins of all this have already got my eyebrow cranking simply because of what is being said, they way it is being said and the provenance of some of those saying it all.
Here's 'a' link about it from the Guardian, though I do wryly note their non main-news g2 section, so I almost missed it: The final countdown
Can you imagine if a telescope spotted a meteorite that in 10 years was going to write our race off?*
ps; What got me on this eventually was being berated for not replying to a 'poll' on a forum that offered me only choices of tipping point from 2 years to twenty. As I am not qualified and hence have no idea, as this was not an option I declined to respond.
Rather typically, of those that did the 10 year assessment is now being touted as a more substantive measure. I am unsure of the make up of the rest of those 'polled' (don't forget the only correct answers presumed a certain view), but I very much doubt they are much different to me, so this already smells of a pr exercise that can and will lead to some rather uncritical journalistic reporting as 'fact' very soon.
Which, IMHO, serves few of us well. Well, some may disagree:
Spread the word about OneHundredMonths.org
(Early pollsters can give themselves a small back-pat for being in the 1-10 years bracket... 100 months being around 8.3 years...)
Personally I feel this adds some fresh light to the recent discussions around “putting more coal on the global bonfire” and highlights the importance and wisdom of Climate Camp...
I am not saying they (who ever they are) might not be sincere an have many good points, but in my main area of interest - how things play with the public - if I am already cranking an eyebrow there have to be questions, again, on methodology.
BBC - Climate crisis: Roosevelt revisited
Guardian - NEW - How can we save the planet in 99 months? Over to you - When this latest little effort popped up I must confess I passed; along with pledges, I rather view deadlines in this arena as at best pointless and at worst a potential set up for a fall. However, in reading this the intention seems at least noble and with latest reminder there at least looks to be a spirit of proactivity. So good luck.
I of course would advocate reuse and designed in second use, as espoused and promoted by such as http://www.junkk.com , representing a worthy compromise between economic constraints, majority consumer (ie: those who may not select the Guardian as first choice of daily, and hence actually are more significant as a public force of influence) behaviours and the chance that we really should get around to re-addressing a lot of what we currently do pronto.
Sadly, at current count this is but one of only a few that actually have tried to answer the invitation. The rest, totalling some 15 to date, being the near inevitable 't'is/t'isn't' 'warmings' (a sort of climatic flame exchange) from various camps that rarely seem to serve much bar heating things up a tad more. Sigh.
*In case you are interested
As this is all a bit close to the whole climate change 'discussions' I have wearied of, I have tended to ignore it all as, rather typically, we have ended up with two camps, 'pro' & 'con', though I am not exactly sure, if they are either, of what they are advocating, or why.
If it's a hurry up call, well OK, but history has kind of shown me that the chicken little approach seems to be brought out a tad too often, and a tad too precisely, and often to serve all sorts of other agendas.
What concerns is that, though this is dealing in matters of years (well, a decade), it is still a) a bit far off for most folk to get their heads around (especially pols fighting for their jobs and families their finances) and b) once (if?) we get that far and at 9 years, 11 months and 30 days if the measure is missed for any reason (and there could be many), it will be yet another (and there have been a few), for the more vocal climate optimists to add another alarmist scalp to their rather one-sided view of what's what.
Thing is, outside of some rather, how to put it, usual suspectesque outlets, this essentially 'end-of-the world is nigh' prediction hasn't exactly yet set the major media or many 'official' outlets alight as yet. And while I am more than concerned, self evidently, the origins of all this have already got my eyebrow cranking simply because of what is being said, they way it is being said and the provenance of some of those saying it all.
Here's 'a' link about it from the Guardian, though I do wryly note their non main-news g2 section, so I almost missed it: The final countdown
Can you imagine if a telescope spotted a meteorite that in 10 years was going to write our race off?*
ps; What got me on this eventually was being berated for not replying to a 'poll' on a forum that offered me only choices of tipping point from 2 years to twenty. As I am not qualified and hence have no idea, as this was not an option I declined to respond.
Rather typically, of those that did the 10 year assessment is now being touted as a more substantive measure. I am unsure of the make up of the rest of those 'polled' (don't forget the only correct answers presumed a certain view), but I very much doubt they are much different to me, so this already smells of a pr exercise that can and will lead to some rather uncritical journalistic reporting as 'fact' very soon.
Which, IMHO, serves few of us well. Well, some may disagree:
Spread the word about OneHundredMonths.org
(Early pollsters can give themselves a small back-pat for being in the 1-10 years bracket... 100 months being around 8.3 years...)
Personally I feel this adds some fresh light to the recent discussions around “putting more coal on the global bonfire” and highlights the importance and wisdom of Climate Camp...
I am not saying they (who ever they are) might not be sincere an have many good points, but in my main area of interest - how things play with the public - if I am already cranking an eyebrow there have to be questions, again, on methodology.
BBC - Climate crisis: Roosevelt revisited
Guardian - NEW - How can we save the planet in 99 months? Over to you - When this latest little effort popped up I must confess I passed; along with pledges, I rather view deadlines in this arena as at best pointless and at worst a potential set up for a fall. However, in reading this the intention seems at least noble and with latest reminder there at least looks to be a spirit of proactivity. So good luck.
I of course would advocate reuse and designed in second use, as espoused and promoted by such as http://www.junkk.com , representing a worthy compromise between economic constraints, majority consumer (ie: those who may not select the Guardian as first choice of daily, and hence actually are more significant as a public force of influence) behaviours and the chance that we really should get around to re-addressing a lot of what we currently do pronto.
Sadly, at current count this is but one of only a few that actually have tried to answer the invitation. The rest, totalling some 15 to date, being the near inevitable 't'is/t'isn't' 'warmings' (a sort of climatic flame exchange) from various camps that rarely seem to serve much bar heating things up a tad more. Sigh.
*In case you are interested
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The message, the medium, the media, the mess
I know I usually stay out of the (PMWN) CC 'debate' for various reasons.
But I do want to share this as it relates to a major interest of mine, namely how information is communicated to the public and/or how they then engage with what they are served.
Real Climate - Journalistic whiplash
Now, Real Climate are definitely in the 'climate pessimistic' camp, but they are much more sincere than many, and the rational tone adopted, along with factual references, certainly makes them worth listening to. Plus of course there are often those who post counters (and do get rebutted by the majority quite forcefully, which can often seem like group bullying, but if they are asking for a challenge and it's done well, why not engage in robust debate).
There is certainly still a tone of 'well it's true, so why don't people accept the obvious?', but at least there is also some acceptance that however the issues are being portrayed, the public, via the media, are not quite getting the message, at least in the way this group would like it to be received.
Of course, I could just as easily post links to other sites with the word climate in their titles which pretty much mirror all this from the other side.
Which is kind of the problem. And the default of 'not sure'/'don't understand', as the Irish EU referendum demonstrated, is, quite reasonably, often to err on the current status quo.
Hence I applaud the fact that this group is trying to understand this issue better, hopefully with a view to better communications. Certainly hectoring by most does not seem to have worked to well to date.
But I do want to share this as it relates to a major interest of mine, namely how information is communicated to the public and/or how they then engage with what they are served.
Real Climate - Journalistic whiplash
Now, Real Climate are definitely in the 'climate pessimistic' camp, but they are much more sincere than many, and the rational tone adopted, along with factual references, certainly makes them worth listening to. Plus of course there are often those who post counters (and do get rebutted by the majority quite forcefully, which can often seem like group bullying, but if they are asking for a challenge and it's done well, why not engage in robust debate).
There is certainly still a tone of 'well it's true, so why don't people accept the obvious?', but at least there is also some acceptance that however the issues are being portrayed, the public, via the media, are not quite getting the message, at least in the way this group would like it to be received.
Of course, I could just as easily post links to other sites with the word climate in their titles which pretty much mirror all this from the other side.
Which is kind of the problem. And the default of 'not sure'/'don't understand', as the Irish EU referendum demonstrated, is, quite reasonably, often to err on the current status quo.
Hence I applaud the fact that this group is trying to understand this issue better, hopefully with a view to better communications. Certainly hectoring by most does not seem to have worked to well to date.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Red top in the morning, global sheperd's warning
A nice link I have been sent: ‘Ye Olde Hot Aire’*: reporting on human contributions to climate change in the UK tabloid press
Brilliant, but shame it did not have a management summary!
Addendum -
No sooner posted than sorted. A kind addition from a fellow forum member. A lot better, but still, a mouthful:
IOP PUBLISHING ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS
Environ. Res. Lett. 3 (2008) 024002 (8pp)
Abstract
This letter explores daily print media coverage of climate change in four United Kingdom (UK) tabloid newspapers: The Sun (and News of the World), Daily Mail (and Mail on Sunday), the Daily Express (and Sunday Express), and the Mirror (and Sunday Mirror).
Through examinations of content in articles over the last seven years (2000–2006), triangulated with semi-structured interviews of journalists and editors, the study finds that UK tabloid coverage significantly diverged from the scientific consensus that humans
contribute to climate change. Moreover, there was no consistent increase in the percentage of accurate coverage throughout the period of analysis and across all tabloid newspapers, and these findings are not consistent with recent trends documented in United States and UK ‘prestige press’ or broadsheet newspaper reporting. Findings from interviews indicate that inaccurate reporting may be linked to the lack of specialist journalists in the tabloid press. This study therefore contributes to wider discussions of socio-economic inequality, media and the environment. Looking to newspapers that are consumed by typically working class readership, this article contributes to ongoing investigations related to what media representations mean for ongoing science–policy interactions as well as potentialities for public engagement.
Sorry if I missed it if it was in there. Sadly not always the time to go through all such things in detail, which is kind of the whole problem suggested. Though I suspect many tabloid editors do go through... and then choose to take certain directions anyway.
There is of course the base stance being taken as read as well. I'd also note in passing that though the audience for this is specialist, there may be an argument to try and package key points in a way to get the desired message across a tad more easily.
My old mantra of the fault being not so much with those you don't convince, but with you for failing to convince them.
Brilliant, but shame it did not have a management summary!
Addendum -
No sooner posted than sorted. A kind addition from a fellow forum member. A lot better, but still, a mouthful:
IOP PUBLISHING ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS
Environ. Res. Lett. 3 (2008) 024002 (8pp)
Abstract
This letter explores daily print media coverage of climate change in four United Kingdom (UK) tabloid newspapers: The Sun (and News of the World), Daily Mail (and Mail on Sunday), the Daily Express (and Sunday Express), and the Mirror (and Sunday Mirror).
Through examinations of content in articles over the last seven years (2000–2006), triangulated with semi-structured interviews of journalists and editors, the study finds that UK tabloid coverage significantly diverged from the scientific consensus that humans
contribute to climate change. Moreover, there was no consistent increase in the percentage of accurate coverage throughout the period of analysis and across all tabloid newspapers, and these findings are not consistent with recent trends documented in United States and UK ‘prestige press’ or broadsheet newspaper reporting. Findings from interviews indicate that inaccurate reporting may be linked to the lack of specialist journalists in the tabloid press. This study therefore contributes to wider discussions of socio-economic inequality, media and the environment. Looking to newspapers that are consumed by typically working class readership, this article contributes to ongoing investigations related to what media representations mean for ongoing science–policy interactions as well as potentialities for public engagement.
Sorry if I missed it if it was in there. Sadly not always the time to go through all such things in detail, which is kind of the whole problem suggested. Though I suspect many tabloid editors do go through... and then choose to take certain directions anyway.
There is of course the base stance being taken as read as well. I'd also note in passing that though the audience for this is specialist, there may be an argument to try and package key points in a way to get the desired message across a tad more easily.
My old mantra of the fault being not so much with those you don't convince, but with you for failing to convince them.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Sunday Highlight
Sadly not in the more common sense of the word, but rather something I feel needs sharing and passed around.
It's about a piece from the BBC site which I noticed and noted. But as I have decided to refrain from most, if not all 'tis/t'isnt (PMWN)CC/AGW arguments for some time I didn't pop up here.
At the time I remember thinking 'O....k, that's a new twist. How long before we get the usual suspects twatting about arguing over this one based on the misuse of the word 'warming' when the climate is behaving damn oddly... both up and down?'.
But at least it was a factual piece, and part of the story. Only, it seems it wasn't telling quite the story some obviously thought it should. And so it seems it was changed.
I am not sure that in so doing, they have helped the cause a lot. And in an era when all these funky archive sites exist, and have legions ready, willing, able and talented enough to trawl them, it makes one wonder just why the BBC thinks it is any different to 'Tricky Dicky' Nixon, and won't get caught.
Here's a wild notion. Tell the truth. Be objective... and let the public think for themselves in trying to decide. That way trust is mainati... oh, heck, who am I kidding? I wouldn't accept a darn word they come out with, at least on anything that involves competing agendas (which is pretty much everything, from CBeebies history lessons to Newsnight twofers'.
Just a shame I am looking at the hiked bill I have to pay to be fed it.
It's about a piece from the BBC site which I noticed and noted. But as I have decided to refrain from most, if not all 'tis/t'isnt (PMWN)CC/AGW arguments for some time I didn't pop up here.
At the time I remember thinking 'O....k, that's a new twist. How long before we get the usual suspects twatting about arguing over this one based on the misuse of the word 'warming' when the climate is behaving damn oddly... both up and down?'.
But at least it was a factual piece, and part of the story. Only, it seems it wasn't telling quite the story some obviously thought it should. And so it seems it was changed.
I am not sure that in so doing, they have helped the cause a lot. And in an era when all these funky archive sites exist, and have legions ready, willing, able and talented enough to trawl them, it makes one wonder just why the BBC thinks it is any different to 'Tricky Dicky' Nixon, and won't get caught.
Here's a wild notion. Tell the truth. Be objective... and let the public think for themselves in trying to decide. That way trust is mainati... oh, heck, who am I kidding? I wouldn't accept a darn word they come out with, at least on anything that involves competing agendas (which is pretty much everything, from CBeebies history lessons to Newsnight twofers'.
Just a shame I am looking at the hiked bill I have to pay to be fed it.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Thousands of deaths by 2012
That could be the scenario here in the UK as a direct consequence of climate change, according to this from The Guardian.
Heatwaves, Malaria, skin cancer, Lyme's disease, plus huge increases in food poisoning cases from nasties like Salmonella, as well as increased rates of air pollution health problems, could account for thousands of additional deaths. It reads a bit like the proverbial pestilence stories from the bible - all that seems to be missing are the plagues of locusts!
It's all going to be OK though, because our Gov is on the case - "health minister Dawn Primarolo said the national health service would have to adapt to deal with the problems posed by climate change. ......... Measures would include: ensuring that hospitals were equipped to deal with the effects of heat, gales, and floods; developing local plans for heatwaves, gales and flooding; disaster preparation; and advising people how to adapt to climate change."
Errrr ..... wouldn't it be better to put more effort into mitigating climate change rather than adapting to it?
But, and again, it's all down to one little word - the report uses that word 'could' again - which seems to be the main culprit for most of this alarming reporting.
Heatwaves, Malaria, skin cancer, Lyme's disease, plus huge increases in food poisoning cases from nasties like Salmonella, as well as increased rates of air pollution health problems, could account for thousands of additional deaths. It reads a bit like the proverbial pestilence stories from the bible - all that seems to be missing are the plagues of locusts!
It's all going to be OK though, because our Gov is on the case - "health minister Dawn Primarolo said the national health service would have to adapt to deal with the problems posed by climate change. ......... Measures would include: ensuring that hospitals were equipped to deal with the effects of heat, gales, and floods; developing local plans for heatwaves, gales and flooding; disaster preparation; and advising people how to adapt to climate change."
Errrr ..... wouldn't it be better to put more effort into mitigating climate change rather than adapting to it?
But, and again, it's all down to one little word - the report uses that word 'could' again - which seems to be the main culprit for most of this alarming reporting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)