A climate of...?
A few points about my article
Biases, U-turns, and the BBC's climate coverage
If you can be bothered to read these, and the comments generated as a consequence, I'd be interested in how you feel afterwards.
Here is my 2d'worth:
Coming in at this juncture one risks feeling rather like some poor non-com who has been ported into the dead centre of a no-person's land. And one between two mighty armies (if comprising about half a dozen, running along the trenches firing away to look extensive) shoveling ordnance into artillery pieces with no real concern as to where the explosion is, so long as it is big enough to raise a cheer from the 'home tribe's' reserves. So I have to say that I have a certain empathy with the image conjured (at least) by this analogy, as one kindly served a few before trying to help with my education in the past....
564. At 09:28am on 20 Oct 2009, rossglory wrote:
errrr, no. what i have noticed is the following exchange over and over again:
denier: can you explain why the sky is green?
alarmist: the latest science shows it's not green but blue.
denier: can you explain why the sky is green?
alarmist: the latest science shows it's not green but blue.
denier: can you explain why the sky is green?
alarmist: i think i'm wasting my time
denier: has anyone noticed alarmists refusing to answer questions?
But, in the spirit of 'balance', I just wonder if it might not be a tad more reflective of the situation(s) (literal and figurative) as follows....
'extreme pessimist': the latest science shows blue skies will turn green unless man stops turning it that way
'extreme optimist' that many 'extreme pessimists' like teasing... and deserve to be: No it's not
'Still neutral': You're right, but I'm unsure how much man really is involved to the level demanded and need to be convinced more before committing the whole farm to serve 'solving' things in the rather selective ways advocated by some.
'Some pessimists' (to any not conforming) : the latest science shows blue skies will turn green unless man stops turning it that way, and by even having doubts you are not with us, and thus need to be shut up or dealt with.
...etc...
Anyone noticed some folk (if from all various 'corners') see things only their way and will not even grant the possibility that there is another view that at the very least deserves to be explored and/or heard?
'If only God the gift hae gae us, to see ourselves as others see us'
Let the bombardments recommence (with, I suspect, the odd frag grenade arriving in my shell hole from various trenches)!
My reply was mainly prompted by this post rather twisting the argument to suit from the off. There was a status quo which has been challenged for change by some who have taken a very absolutist view. Many, myself included, are not comfortable with this, or the methods chosen thus far. Especially to find myself targeted as a 'denier', which makes me feel 'resistant' to this grouping holding sway. I hope my innocent suggestion will be appreciated for laying that conceit bare.
I also stand ready to be accused of being in the pay of someone or other, or at least in league. Which is kinda funny as the ones throwing such accusations around seem to be mostly from the crew cheerfully suggesting they all meet back in the forum they have created to deal with 'wrong thinking folk'.
Showing posts with label BIASED REPORTING. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BIASED REPORTING. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
What does cranking an eyebrow make me?
The climate change conference for deniers
'Whether you call them climate change deniers or skeptics'
Might I suggest one step might be for 'you' not to call 'them' either? I tend to view anything in the reportage field that starts on these bases to be about as much use as stuff that kicks of with 'Treehuggers' or "Hair shirts'. It all gets a bit tribal otherwise.
Perhaps great for those who like pointless spats and endless arguments, but usually not so helpful to sensible discussion on improving my kids' futures on the planet.
It is also my experience that very few who have those labels appended as a pejorative actually deny or are sceptical that the climate is changing. Most seem to be more interested in why and what might be done about it in a practical as opposed to idealistic sense, which means reserving the right to question certain dogmatically-held, and uncritically supported views.
Which is, IMHO, a tad different.
'Whether you call them climate change deniers or skeptics'
Might I suggest one step might be for 'you' not to call 'them' either? I tend to view anything in the reportage field that starts on these bases to be about as much use as stuff that kicks of with 'Treehuggers' or "Hair shirts'. It all gets a bit tribal otherwise.
Perhaps great for those who like pointless spats and endless arguments, but usually not so helpful to sensible discussion on improving my kids' futures on the planet.
It is also my experience that very few who have those labels appended as a pejorative actually deny or are sceptical that the climate is changing. Most seem to be more interested in why and what might be done about it in a practical as opposed to idealistic sense, which means reserving the right to question certain dogmatically-held, and uncritically supported views.
Which is, IMHO, a tad different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)