I tend to steer clear of Climate Changey stuff as it inevitably ends up so far at two extremes as to be essentially useless as information and simply overall unpleasant to be amongst.
However, I do feel this worth posting, as I was alerted to it by a rather coy reference on BBC Breakfast News, which also seemed to be having trouble with the 'censure' bit being followed by the 'did not mislead' bit.
Channel 4 to be censured over climate film
As soon as I finish this sentence I might hop over to the Ch4 site to see how they spin it. What's the betting there might be a different order of emphasis?
... well there's a surprise. Nothing. At least, that I could find. And what a woeful site! Some of the news items are months old!
Thing is, I really don't know what to make of it all. At best there seems to be some value in news creators being told not to tell porkies, and also for those who would deny the deniers to get to grips with the fact that there are many who are not yet convinced of various 'facts' and consequent solutions, and that sulking is not going to cut it in rebuttal. I'd suggest tackling the arguments rather than the persons making them, and lock down the science rather blowing it out of proportion such that subsequent errors don't prove a gift to those seeking to spin another way.
As for the BBC, I'd also suggest getting a little more balance in, and a little less theatre in trying to help the public assess it. Lord Monckton and Roger Harrabin, while undoubtedly well-informed by now (so many miles flown in the pursuit of knowledge), are hardly well placed to reassure me that what I am getting has been sifted for even the most basic factual rigour.
Addendum - Global warming and the arks of the 41st century - seems about the right place for it
Addendum 2 - OFCOM ruling - that only a person with too much time, or no life, could love.
BBC - Climate documentary 'broke rules' (on e way of looking at it)
The Register - Climate Swindle film: bruised egos, but no offence (another way)
The Times - Channel 4 censured for programme that said climate change was a fraud (and another, reflecting the Guardian article referred to above. Ain't news reporting grand these days?)
Ch4 - All I could find: CHANNEL 4 APOLOGY OVER CLIMATE CHANGE DOCUMENTARY
The broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, has made serious criticisms of a Channel 4 documentary which challenged the consensual theory within the scientific community that human activity is the prime cause of global warming and climate change.
The regulator has found The Great Global Warming Swindle, which was aired last year, failed to meet obligations to be impartial and to represent a range of views, and was ‘unjust and unfair’ in the way it treated and represented individuals. But, concludes Ofcom, the programme did not mislead audiences ‘so as to cause harm’.
Read our five-minute guide to climate change
Indy - C4's climate change documentary 'was unfair but not misleading'
Indy - Michael McCarthy: Ofcom's judgement failed to address the key question... was this programme accurate?
Gaurdian - Why does Channel 4 seem to be waging a war against the greens? -
Gaurdian - Watchdog's verdict on Channel 4 climate film angers scientists -
Gaurdian - The public has been swindled - Might be time to pop over to another chann... paper route. This is getting... predictabel... partisan... etc. Sure it will be 'over there', too.
Telegraph - Channel 4 censured for misrepresenting scientists on climate change
Telegraph - Climate change fanatics censor inconvenient truths - a minority view perhaps - I have to say that the whole thing is rather embodied to me by one 'side' using the term 'deniers' and the other 'fanatics', with no sesne of anything other than these entrenched views existing... or being allowed to. Me, I'm a climate* dunno'er, but best to err on caution. But none of this lot get my voet to speak for me.
The Times, so far, seems to have missed it.
BBC - Newsnight - A Great Channel 4 Swindle? - always good for a laugh
Ch4 - It's not we who make the public sceptical on climate change - If I were to take anything as a member of the media from this sorry affair, it is:
1)Don't take sides
2)Don't pander to agendas
3)Don't chase ratings
4)Don't make things up
5)If you get it wrong, apologise, put it right... and don't do it again.
Which does of course applies to all sides in this 'argument'. I for one am fed sick of the extremes and, sadly, my first thought is to ignore the whole sorry lot.
* as in Probably Man-Worsened
Gaurdian - The great lunar rockism con - What strikes me most is how many replies have been deleted.
Telegraph - NEW - Channel 4 defends itself against green censorship
Showing posts with label CHANNEL 4. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CHANNEL 4. Show all posts
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Monday, July 07, 2008
PR OPPORTUNITY - Ch 4 Show 'Dream Farms'
I've had a call from my chum Tracey at Downshifting Week passing on a potential PR opportunity for any green-minded folk who might fit this bill.
It's from Rachel of production company 'betty':
I am currently researching a 6 part series for Channel 4 called: Dream Farms (working title). The aim of the series is to follow a number of people as they pursue their dreams of leaving city life and stresses behind, in favour of setting up a small holding, or farm. The series would aim to film over the course of a year– so key moments in the farming calendar would be captured. Its early days, but we are very keen to speak to anyone who may be about to embark on such a venture. All types of agriculturally related projects are of interest, from the traditional, to perhaps the more obscure (or becoming less so) Alpaca farming.
Throughout the series we will be looking to enlist an expert, or range of experts, who will be able to offer practical support and guidance to individuals, as they attempt to get their projects off the ground.
As you can tell, it’s quite broad brushed at the moment and I am very open to new ideas and thoughts. Any conversations would initially be for research purposes.
If you think you may meet the brief and are interested, email her direct at Rachel.Hellings@betty.co.uk
It's from Rachel of production company 'betty':
I am currently researching a 6 part series for Channel 4 called: Dream Farms (working title). The aim of the series is to follow a number of people as they pursue their dreams of leaving city life and stresses behind, in favour of setting up a small holding, or farm. The series would aim to film over the course of a year– so key moments in the farming calendar would be captured. Its early days, but we are very keen to speak to anyone who may be about to embark on such a venture. All types of agriculturally related projects are of interest, from the traditional, to perhaps the more obscure (or becoming less so) Alpaca farming.
Throughout the series we will be looking to enlist an expert, or range of experts, who will be able to offer practical support and guidance to individuals, as they attempt to get their projects off the ground.
As you can tell, it’s quite broad brushed at the moment and I am very open to new ideas and thoughts. Any conversations would initially be for research purposes.
If you think you may meet the brief and are interested, email her direct at Rachel.Hellings@betty.co.uk
Friday, February 15, 2008
The carbon capturing car?
Here's yet another twist on hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles as reported by Channel4.
"The Georgia Tech car can run on conventional petrol or diesel, but has an on-board processor to separate out the hydrogen in the fuel. The hydrogen is used to run the car, as in a fuel cell vehicle, giving zero-emissions operation (the only waste product is water) and the carbon is stored in a liquid solution."
The idea is that the remaining hydrocarbon liquid contains all the carbon, which is then reprocessed to create yet more fuel. Sounds like an interesting concept. Let's see how it develops.
"The Georgia Tech car can run on conventional petrol or diesel, but has an on-board processor to separate out the hydrogen in the fuel. The hydrogen is used to run the car, as in a fuel cell vehicle, giving zero-emissions operation (the only waste product is water) and the carbon is stored in a liquid solution."
The idea is that the remaining hydrocarbon liquid contains all the carbon, which is then reprocessed to create yet more fuel. Sounds like an interesting concept. Let's see how it develops.
Friday, February 08, 2008
More facts, figures and statistics!
Yet another set of facts and figures that may be open to question.
Addendum below. Post redated from 02/02/08 accordingly.
I spotted the gov's official CO2 emission figures the other day and thought that as the supposed reduction was so small, it was hardly worth commenting on. However, as reported by Channel 4, some green campaigners claim the figures are 'misleading', especially as they "ignore emissions from international flights, which are increasing."
In fact, they reckon that if you add in the international flights factor, the gov's figure would show a 5.5% year on year INCREASE in CO2 emissions.
Errrm ....... just who the hell are we supposed to believe?
We are simply left in an unknowing dilemma when facts, figures and statistics are massaged to suit a particular argument, as we have already commented on before.
ADDENDUM (Junkk Male) - Now here's a useful thing. A little effort of C4's I subscribed to only recently, called Fact Check. And looky here: FactCheck: have UK emissions really gone down? Neither hyped up nor spun down? I think they're being generous.
ps; And as the typo king I'm one to talk, but have to love their spelling of 'largerly'
Addendum below. Post redated from 02/02/08 accordingly.
I spotted the gov's official CO2 emission figures the other day and thought that as the supposed reduction was so small, it was hardly worth commenting on. However, as reported by Channel 4, some green campaigners claim the figures are 'misleading', especially as they "ignore emissions from international flights, which are increasing."
In fact, they reckon that if you add in the international flights factor, the gov's figure would show a 5.5% year on year INCREASE in CO2 emissions.
Errrm ....... just who the hell are we supposed to believe?
We are simply left in an unknowing dilemma when facts, figures and statistics are massaged to suit a particular argument, as we have already commented on before.
ADDENDUM (Junkk Male) - Now here's a useful thing. A little effort of C4's I subscribed to only recently, called Fact Check. And looky here: FactCheck: have UK emissions really gone down? Neither hyped up nor spun down? I think they're being generous.
ps; And as the typo king I'm one to talk, but have to love their spelling of 'largerly'
Friday, February 01, 2008
Talks ..... for the sake of talk?
It looks very much as if the next round of climate change talks has resulted in ......... well, nothing.
As reported by Channel 4, the much hyped Hawaiian negotiations have agreed no deal on targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Lots of hot air, and again no progress. What a waste of time!
Addendum:
But, as ever, it does rather depend on just who is doing the reporting, as this from CNN.com exemplifies - "participants praised what they saw as a new willingness by the United States to discuss possible solutions", and, "Delegates said the U.S. showed a new flexibility since earlier climate change meetings, and that they were able to talk frankly about their differences."
Perhaps our friends over the pond ARE slowly starting to make a slight shift in their stance?
As reported by Channel 4, the much hyped Hawaiian negotiations have agreed no deal on targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Lots of hot air, and again no progress. What a waste of time!
Addendum:
But, as ever, it does rather depend on just who is doing the reporting, as this from CNN.com exemplifies - "participants praised what they saw as a new willingness by the United States to discuss possible solutions", and, "Delegates said the U.S. showed a new flexibility since earlier climate change meetings, and that they were able to talk frankly about their differences."
Perhaps our friends over the pond ARE slowly starting to make a slight shift in their stance?
Monday, September 03, 2007
Some rubbish even I can't take
I actually applied for this, I think: Dumped recycles an old idea
I clicked on at the moment some blonde with access to considerable makeup resources was telling some bloke that he wasn't making them feel useful. And then HE said...
I'm sure it will be taken as a compliment but it was just so much of the same old rubbish I could cope with no more.
Big Brother in a bin.
A bullet got dodged, I know. And I should have stayed to watch, but even I have limits.
Telegraph - Shame on the schedulers
I clicked on at the moment some blonde with access to considerable makeup resources was telling some bloke that he wasn't making them feel useful. And then HE said...
I'm sure it will be taken as a compliment but it was just so much of the same old rubbish I could cope with no more.
Big Brother in a bin.
A bullet got dodged, I know. And I should have stayed to watch, but even I have limits.
Telegraph - Shame on the schedulers
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
'Dere was 'dese tree fellas...
It is a sorry comment on even sorrier times that I have to preface my comments on last night's Ch4 'Great Green Smokescreen' with the caution that it is a) a supposed 'news' item b) on TV and c) on Ch 4.
These are the guys who brought us another 'Great..' not so long ago. So who knows what is true?
For what it's worth, a lot did ring pretty close to what I have stumbled across and/or feel and/or has been shared by me and others on this blog.
You only have to go back a few posts to find a few eyebrows being cocked at the PR and ad onslaughts by such as HSBC, SKY and BP, who rather crudely seem to have managed to make 3/4 of a million out of 2,500 (cars, that is), and all from a few acres of pig poo under a very dodgy looking tarp. Editing for effect? Well, if the 'disclaimers' were anything to go by - 'Oops! Got us in one. We'll take that claim off right away. Byeeee!". Plus almost BBCesque fudges on how tricky the facts are to get right. Are they scientists or what? I bet if it was finding a barrel of oil at 30,000 feet they'd have the numbers down to a decimal place.
Then we get straight into the meat of the piece: the guys who sit in deckchairs flogging trendies (individual and company variety) tracts of 'land' with 'trees' (no mention of the deforestation of mature areas being a much better option) to assuage liberal guilt that does not quite extend to cutting back. £10 gets you off a flight, as in off on the next one so long as you are rich... and either very dumb or very blinkered. Along with some authority figures I'd say, as from what I saw the Forestry Commission (hold that word in mind each time you hear of guys who sell you stuff to pollute some more) was using whose money to subsidise these guys to flog whose trees?
Cut to commercial. Vauxhall ecoflex, since you didn't ask. It's a car, by the way. I think. One of those with a leaf in the exhaust. But I'm sure it's so green you can go an extra few miles on the same amount. And hence you probably will. Ok, a better than nothing, but I have a drawer bulging with car ads which really are pushing my greenwash tolerance to the limit.
Thing is, it seems no one can agree on these footprints anyway (er, why?) so they are all pretty much making it up. What next? A two for one deal? The explanations and/or mitigations offered by the offwithhisheadsetters were all less than convincing. Especially the one who offered two prices; one direct and one via their client BA. Guess which one was lower? It's all about multipliers, apparently. And so, because 'we' don't know, yet, what they are, we don't allow for them. Works for me. Well, actually, when it comes to the future of my kids' planet, it really, really doesn't guys.
It was at this point the reporter admitted to being confused and unsure who to trust. Well, there's a surprise.
Speaking of trusting the media (Neat link, huh?), there was a good case of actual facts being used, assuming, of course they were true. Some Bulgarian project or other. Claim and counter claim of whether it made any darn difference bounced around until we ended up at the bank. And when it comes to money, they don't lie. And the bank says 'no'. So yet another pot into which a load of green got consummately p*ssed away. After commission.
SKY (a CH 4 competitor, mind) didn't come out too well, if only in making big claims that didn't seem to add up. I recall them being major speakers at the Guardian Climate Change Summit, and while the vast commitments made were mentioned all right, what was not was how the regular reviews of their 12.5% investment wasn't looking too solid on enviROI. I wonder what these guys with CSR Director or Eco Advisor as titles actually do all day?
Cue next ad... for a racing car!
Then we get back to the ways to make a big difference, in London at least, with... wait for it... a Carbon Neutral (the term has been shown to be less than helpful by now - in fact DEFRA was quoted as saying companies really shouldn't call themselves that) variety show!
That'll do it!
Or... food miles on a pack of crisps. Sorted!
There was, apparently, no real comment from the Carbon Trust. There are those two words again. Only this time together.
The conclusion was that there was no real harm to it all, but the question was asked if it was a dangerous diversion. I'd rather say that if it is a dangerous diversion there is a lot of potential harm.
Seeing some London luvvie called Fanny, who rejoices in the title 'Head of Policy' for an outfit called Global Cool, lob up in a Chauffeured Prius, to share such dazzling insights as not flushing the loo hardly inspired me.
And to those of more modest means it simply made the whole thing look like a silly little fad.
Do all these things for heavens sake, but get the info for free. Why do you need to pay money to rich folk to show you care about your kids and their futures?
ADDENDUM _ just came across a note I jotted in the lounge as I watched the Ch4 news preceding this. Joan Ruddock, Minister for Climate Change (didn't even, until now, know we had one), was being challenged by Jon Snow on what the government was doing to clear all this up. Apparently they are 'working towards' a solution. Well that's it all sorted then. Now I see why they get the big bucks. Meantime, for the poor consumer's sake, let's be hoping that major multinationals have no more 'website malfunctions' to... misle.. er... 'confuse' us.
Guardian - Last night's TV: Dispatches: The Great Green Smoke Screen - I like my review better. And I didn't even snipe about the 4x4, as the Ch4 guy wasn't really preaching. As some do.
Indy - Raft of flaws found in popular carbon offsetting schemes - It's like they watched the same programme! Oh, they did. Interesting that no one (else) is at least pointing out the provenance of the story, which tends to suggest these carbon offset schemes have a lot of explaining to do. As have any sloppy corporates who saw/see green as a quick way to look green with no real thought going into the substance.
These are the guys who brought us another 'Great..' not so long ago. So who knows what is true?
For what it's worth, a lot did ring pretty close to what I have stumbled across and/or feel and/or has been shared by me and others on this blog.
You only have to go back a few posts to find a few eyebrows being cocked at the PR and ad onslaughts by such as HSBC, SKY and BP, who rather crudely seem to have managed to make 3/4 of a million out of 2,500 (cars, that is), and all from a few acres of pig poo under a very dodgy looking tarp. Editing for effect? Well, if the 'disclaimers' were anything to go by - 'Oops! Got us in one. We'll take that claim off right away. Byeeee!". Plus almost BBCesque fudges on how tricky the facts are to get right. Are they scientists or what? I bet if it was finding a barrel of oil at 30,000 feet they'd have the numbers down to a decimal place.
Then we get straight into the meat of the piece: the guys who sit in deckchairs flogging trendies (individual and company variety) tracts of 'land' with 'trees' (no mention of the deforestation of mature areas being a much better option) to assuage liberal guilt that does not quite extend to cutting back. £10 gets you off a flight, as in off on the next one so long as you are rich... and either very dumb or very blinkered. Along with some authority figures I'd say, as from what I saw the Forestry Commission (hold that word in mind each time you hear of guys who sell you stuff to pollute some more) was using whose money to subsidise these guys to flog whose trees?
Cut to commercial. Vauxhall ecoflex, since you didn't ask. It's a car, by the way. I think. One of those with a leaf in the exhaust. But I'm sure it's so green you can go an extra few miles on the same amount. And hence you probably will. Ok, a better than nothing, but I have a drawer bulging with car ads which really are pushing my greenwash tolerance to the limit.
Thing is, it seems no one can agree on these footprints anyway (er, why?) so they are all pretty much making it up. What next? A two for one deal? The explanations and/or mitigations offered by the offwithhisheadsetters were all less than convincing. Especially the one who offered two prices; one direct and one via their client BA. Guess which one was lower? It's all about multipliers, apparently. And so, because 'we' don't know, yet, what they are, we don't allow for them. Works for me. Well, actually, when it comes to the future of my kids' planet, it really, really doesn't guys.
It was at this point the reporter admitted to being confused and unsure who to trust. Well, there's a surprise.
Speaking of trusting the media (Neat link, huh?), there was a good case of actual facts being used, assuming, of course they were true. Some Bulgarian project or other. Claim and counter claim of whether it made any darn difference bounced around until we ended up at the bank. And when it comes to money, they don't lie. And the bank says 'no'. So yet another pot into which a load of green got consummately p*ssed away. After commission.
SKY (a CH 4 competitor, mind) didn't come out too well, if only in making big claims that didn't seem to add up. I recall them being major speakers at the Guardian Climate Change Summit, and while the vast commitments made were mentioned all right, what was not was how the regular reviews of their 12.5% investment wasn't looking too solid on enviROI. I wonder what these guys with CSR Director or Eco Advisor as titles actually do all day?
Cue next ad... for a racing car!
Then we get back to the ways to make a big difference, in London at least, with... wait for it... a Carbon Neutral (the term has been shown to be less than helpful by now - in fact DEFRA was quoted as saying companies really shouldn't call themselves that) variety show!
That'll do it!
Or... food miles on a pack of crisps. Sorted!
There was, apparently, no real comment from the Carbon Trust. There are those two words again. Only this time together.
The conclusion was that there was no real harm to it all, but the question was asked if it was a dangerous diversion. I'd rather say that if it is a dangerous diversion there is a lot of potential harm.
Seeing some London luvvie called Fanny, who rejoices in the title 'Head of Policy' for an outfit called Global Cool, lob up in a Chauffeured Prius, to share such dazzling insights as not flushing the loo hardly inspired me.
And to those of more modest means it simply made the whole thing look like a silly little fad.
Do all these things for heavens sake, but get the info for free. Why do you need to pay money to rich folk to show you care about your kids and their futures?
ADDENDUM _ just came across a note I jotted in the lounge as I watched the Ch4 news preceding this. Joan Ruddock, Minister for Climate Change (didn't even, until now, know we had one), was being challenged by Jon Snow on what the government was doing to clear all this up. Apparently they are 'working towards' a solution. Well that's it all sorted then. Now I see why they get the big bucks. Meantime, for the poor consumer's sake, let's be hoping that major multinationals have no more 'website malfunctions' to... misle.. er... 'confuse' us.
Guardian - Last night's TV: Dispatches: The Great Green Smoke Screen - I like my review better. And I didn't even snipe about the 4x4, as the Ch4 guy wasn't really preaching. As some do.
Indy - Raft of flaws found in popular carbon offsetting schemes - It's like they watched the same programme! Oh, they did. Interesting that no one (else) is at least pointing out the provenance of the story, which tends to suggest these carbon offset schemes have a lot of explaining to do. As have any sloppy corporates who saw/see green as a quick way to look green with no real thought going into the substance.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
The Human Footprint
Ch4, repeated recently on More4
As I wrote:
I live and work in the world of environmental issues, specifically trying to make people think more and then act on their impacts. This programme was excellent. Entertaining as well as thought-provoking. And stunningly produced, directed, shot and edited. Well done. If you ever decide to move into a similar, more specific effort of this nature on any aspect of our consumer lifestyles, especially packaging (I have, as an exercise, not thrown anything away for 4 years - so the scenes of endless rows of bottles resonated. Though the missus is not thrilled), let me know.
This is the way to make a difference, through fun and not guilt, nanny or scold. Rather than an Inconvenient Truth this should be in all our schools, and I'm amazed to have only stumbled upon it tucked away like this. I must have been asleep when it was aired mainstream.
As I wrote:
I live and work in the world of environmental issues, specifically trying to make people think more and then act on their impacts. This programme was excellent. Entertaining as well as thought-provoking. And stunningly produced, directed, shot and edited. Well done. If you ever decide to move into a similar, more specific effort of this nature on any aspect of our consumer lifestyles, especially packaging (I have, as an exercise, not thrown anything away for 4 years - so the scenes of endless rows of bottles resonated. Though the missus is not thrilled), let me know.
This is the way to make a difference, through fun and not guilt, nanny or scold. Rather than an Inconvenient Truth this should be in all our schools, and I'm amazed to have only stumbled upon it tucked away like this. I must have been asleep when it was aired mainstream.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
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.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
It's not just what you say, but who hears it that matters most
Scenes from the denialist denoument
All very well 'n good.
For those who may not have had a chance to see it, you can get a flavour of the offending piece here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk ... for now.
I'm afraid that no matter what else I may think, I would feel unable to dismiss it as standard hackery, even if I think I understand what that term is trying to conjure up.
I'd hazard that, to your average Joe on their sofa, this is slick, calm, considered, credible, easy on the eye and ear, with a large selection of talking heads with impressive titles (the co-founder of Greenpeace! That blew me away, I have to admit, though being unaware for now what the back story is or may be. Doubtless I will be advised that he is 'discredited'). I also have to say that some of the factual footage of techniques used to discredit these 'deniers' was handled... convincingly.
I might add that it's all a bit like stuff I get fed by what might call the 'other side'.
So I was/am seduced in part, and will have to delve more to try and weigh what is said and by whom against alternatives. Hence I will try to get what may approximate to actuality inbetween the two, sadly usually as served up by compliant and/or often complicit media with agendas of their own (principally this is a rating point rather than any desire to educate of inform objectively, else we would see well-balanced debates stocked with all sides. So the remark about the environmental journalism industry having a vested interest in keeping the frenzy at fever pitch is noted, but rather undermined by the fact that there seems a very healthy anti-environmentalism industry turning a healthy buck too. It would be nice to get past all this, move on and let the whole lot get a real job at Starbucks).
Most time-poor folk are unlikely to do so.
So it's possibly a shame that the majority of the UK population, and even those who tuned in to Against Nature, won't ever read George Monbiot's rebuttal, as opposed to watching a primetime TV show or even a more highbrow niche news piece, such as BBC 2's Newsnight - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/03/monday_12_march_2007.html
If it caused a sensation anywhere, it's not too much as that was about all I could find here by way of mass media.
He makes good points, but it's also a pity all comment is closed on Mr. Monbiot's piece (the link is to his own site) already. However, I am not sure he is too worried about critics: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/0230/83316... look out Richard Branson (and those who stand beside him), George is watching!
I just wanted to ask what 'syllogism' meant. I'm personally of the view that staying so highbrow is not the best way to get the punters onside with anything else you may go on to say, though I'm sure it makes your posh mates dead impressed and start blogging away in awe.
But, if we are really trying to effect positive change, whose interests are being served first, if at all, by such an approach?
If you can be bothered, here's a link to another very heavy set of academic to & fros to see an example of death match shuffleboard on the Titanic, with the winner left to rearrange the deckchairs.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/weekend-of-planet-report.html
All together now... hit it, Celine...!
Back to the shed. I don't know what I don't know. But I do know that it has to be worth any and all ways to do things to reduce waste, improve efficiencies and, at least, consider acceptable ways to start reduction.
Ignoring GW/CC completely, simple maths shows the value of this. One spherical planet, with a finite livable area with an equally finite area for sustaining resources. And an ever-expanding population, many of whom can afford and even more of whom will soon be able to afford all sorts of 'stuff' and travel.
There has to be a point where that circle cannot be squared.
Speaking of going in circles: Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change
(with a few tweaks)
I came here via a US post that called the programme, 'standard hackery', and a follow-up which pointed at this article. I'm afraid that no matter what else I may think, I would feel unable to dismiss it in such a way, even if I think I understand what that term is trying to conjure up.
I'd hazard that, to your average Joe on their sofa, this is slick, calm, considered, credible, easy on the eye and ear, with a large selection of talking heads with impressive titles (the co-founder of Greenpeace! That blew me away, I have to admit, though being unaware for now what the back story is or may be. Doubtless I will be advised that he is 'discredited'). I also have to say that some of the factual footage of techniques used to discredit these 'deniers' was handled... convincingly.
I might add that it's all a bit like stuff I get fed by what might be called the 'other side'.
So I was/am seduced in part, and will have to delve more to try and weigh what is said and by whom against alternatives. Hence I will try to get what may approximate to actuality inbetween the two, sadly usually as served up by compliant and/or often complicit media with agendas of their own (principally this is a rating point rather than any desire to educate of inform objectively, else we would see well-balanced debates stocked with all sides. So the remark about the environmental journalism industry having a vested interest in keeping the frenzy at fever pitch is noted, but rather undermined by the fact that there seems a very healthy anti-environmentalism industry turning a healthy buck too. It would be nice to get past all this, move on and let the whole lot get a real job at Starbucks).
Most time-poor folk are unlikely to do so.
So it's possibly a shame that the majority of the UK population, and even those who tuned in to Against Nature, won't ever read this rebuttal, as opposed to watching a primetime TV show or even a more highbrow niche news piece, such as BBC 2's Newsnight - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/03/monday_12_march_2007.html
I just wanted to ask what 'syllogism' meant. I'm personally of the view that staying so highbrow is not the best way to get the punters onside with anything else you may go on to say, though I'm sure it makes your posh mates dead impressed and start blogging away in awe. You can blind people with science. Shame if that renders them deaf to reason as well.
But, if we are really trying to effect positive change, whose interests are being served first, if at all, by such an approach?
If you can be bothered, here's a link to another very heavy set of academic to & fros to see an example of death match shuffleboard on the Titanic, with the winner left to rearrange the deckchairs.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/weekend-of-planet-report.html
All together now... hit it, Celine...!
Back to the shed. I don't know what I don't know. But I do know that it has to be worth any and all ways to do things to reduce waste, improve efficiencies and, at least, consider acceptable ways to start reduction.
Ignoring GW/CC completely, simple maths shows the value of this. One spherical planet, with a finite livable area with an equally finite area for sustaining resources. And an ever-expanding population, many of whom can afford and even more of whom will soon be able to afford all sorts of 'stuff' and travel.
There has to be a point where that sphere cannot be cubed.
Guardian - Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming' - How does one dupe a scientist to refute his science?
Indy - Carl Wunsch: I should never have trusted Channel 4
Times - C4’s debate on global warming boils over
Indy Letters
Telegraph - Arctic ice hits 'tipping point'
All very well 'n good.
For those who may not have had a chance to see it, you can get a flavour of the offending piece here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk ... for now.
I'm afraid that no matter what else I may think, I would feel unable to dismiss it as standard hackery, even if I think I understand what that term is trying to conjure up.
I'd hazard that, to your average Joe on their sofa, this is slick, calm, considered, credible, easy on the eye and ear, with a large selection of talking heads with impressive titles (the co-founder of Greenpeace! That blew me away, I have to admit, though being unaware for now what the back story is or may be. Doubtless I will be advised that he is 'discredited'). I also have to say that some of the factual footage of techniques used to discredit these 'deniers' was handled... convincingly.
I might add that it's all a bit like stuff I get fed by what might call the 'other side'.
So I was/am seduced in part, and will have to delve more to try and weigh what is said and by whom against alternatives. Hence I will try to get what may approximate to actuality inbetween the two, sadly usually as served up by compliant and/or often complicit media with agendas of their own (principally this is a rating point rather than any desire to educate of inform objectively, else we would see well-balanced debates stocked with all sides. So the remark about the environmental journalism industry having a vested interest in keeping the frenzy at fever pitch is noted, but rather undermined by the fact that there seems a very healthy anti-environmentalism industry turning a healthy buck too. It would be nice to get past all this, move on and let the whole lot get a real job at Starbucks).
Most time-poor folk are unlikely to do so.
So it's possibly a shame that the majority of the UK population, and even those who tuned in to Against Nature, won't ever read George Monbiot's rebuttal, as opposed to watching a primetime TV show or even a more highbrow niche news piece, such as BBC 2's Newsnight - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/03/monday_12_march_2007.html
If it caused a sensation anywhere, it's not too much as that was about all I could find here by way of mass media.
He makes good points, but it's also a pity all comment is closed on Mr. Monbiot's piece (the link is to his own site) already. However, I am not sure he is too worried about critics: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/0230/83316... look out Richard Branson (and those who stand beside him), George is watching!
I just wanted to ask what 'syllogism' meant. I'm personally of the view that staying so highbrow is not the best way to get the punters onside with anything else you may go on to say, though I'm sure it makes your posh mates dead impressed and start blogging away in awe.
But, if we are really trying to effect positive change, whose interests are being served first, if at all, by such an approach?
If you can be bothered, here's a link to another very heavy set of academic to & fros to see an example of death match shuffleboard on the Titanic, with the winner left to rearrange the deckchairs.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/weekend-of-planet-report.html
All together now... hit it, Celine...!
Back to the shed. I don't know what I don't know. But I do know that it has to be worth any and all ways to do things to reduce waste, improve efficiencies and, at least, consider acceptable ways to start reduction.
Ignoring GW/CC completely, simple maths shows the value of this. One spherical planet, with a finite livable area with an equally finite area for sustaining resources. And an ever-expanding population, many of whom can afford and even more of whom will soon be able to afford all sorts of 'stuff' and travel.
There has to be a point where that circle cannot be squared.
Speaking of going in circles: Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change
(with a few tweaks)
I came here via a US post that called the programme, 'standard hackery', and a follow-up which pointed at this article. I'm afraid that no matter what else I may think, I would feel unable to dismiss it in such a way, even if I think I understand what that term is trying to conjure up.
I'd hazard that, to your average Joe on their sofa, this is slick, calm, considered, credible, easy on the eye and ear, with a large selection of talking heads with impressive titles (the co-founder of Greenpeace! That blew me away, I have to admit, though being unaware for now what the back story is or may be. Doubtless I will be advised that he is 'discredited'). I also have to say that some of the factual footage of techniques used to discredit these 'deniers' was handled... convincingly.
I might add that it's all a bit like stuff I get fed by what might be called the 'other side'.
So I was/am seduced in part, and will have to delve more to try and weigh what is said and by whom against alternatives. Hence I will try to get what may approximate to actuality inbetween the two, sadly usually as served up by compliant and/or often complicit media with agendas of their own (principally this is a rating point rather than any desire to educate of inform objectively, else we would see well-balanced debates stocked with all sides. So the remark about the environmental journalism industry having a vested interest in keeping the frenzy at fever pitch is noted, but rather undermined by the fact that there seems a very healthy anti-environmentalism industry turning a healthy buck too. It would be nice to get past all this, move on and let the whole lot get a real job at Starbucks).
Most time-poor folk are unlikely to do so.
So it's possibly a shame that the majority of the UK population, and even those who tuned in to Against Nature, won't ever read this rebuttal, as opposed to watching a primetime TV show or even a more highbrow niche news piece, such as BBC 2's Newsnight - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/03/monday_12_march_2007.html
I just wanted to ask what 'syllogism' meant. I'm personally of the view that staying so highbrow is not the best way to get the punters onside with anything else you may go on to say, though I'm sure it makes your posh mates dead impressed and start blogging away in awe. You can blind people with science. Shame if that renders them deaf to reason as well.
But, if we are really trying to effect positive change, whose interests are being served first, if at all, by such an approach?
If you can be bothered, here's a link to another very heavy set of academic to & fros to see an example of death match shuffleboard on the Titanic, with the winner left to rearrange the deckchairs.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/weekend-of-planet-report.html
All together now... hit it, Celine...!
Back to the shed. I don't know what I don't know. But I do know that it has to be worth any and all ways to do things to reduce waste, improve efficiencies and, at least, consider acceptable ways to start reduction.
Ignoring GW/CC completely, simple maths shows the value of this. One spherical planet, with a finite livable area with an equally finite area for sustaining resources. And an ever-expanding population, many of whom can afford and even more of whom will soon be able to afford all sorts of 'stuff' and travel.
There has to be a point where that sphere cannot be cubed.
Guardian - Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming' - How does one dupe a scientist to refute his science?
Indy - Carl Wunsch: I should never have trusted Channel 4
Times - C4’s debate on global warming boils over
Indy Letters
Telegraph - Arctic ice hits 'tipping point'
Friday, March 09, 2007
Last Rights
Against Nature - Channel 4
I’m going to break a firmly held principle and comment on something I have not... yet... seen. Again.
In a certain irony, last night as I expounded to a group at Aston Science Park on how we can harness consumer power to effect positive environmental behavior changes through incentive and reward, my twins had decided that some Japanese cartoon was a better bet on Sky than what I had programmed to record. Let’s hope I am as successful in helping save the planet as the spiky doe-eyed dude and his posse of mutant mates.
What struck me at the event was the enthusiasm of all those present for tangible DOING, as opposed to endless debate on esoteric issues, jockeying to be smarter and righter. And while these were folk from the SME’s prepared to stay from early to late evening, I hope it would not be unfair to say many present were representative of the average, working, Previa and not Prius person general public.
So I wonder what they would have made of this? Doubtless there will be great debate in the eco-media, including such as the Indy and Guardian (no chance to scope the onlines yet, and BBC Breakfast doesn’t seem concerned), but I’m pretty sure it will all pass last night’s group by. Unless an editor scents some headlines from contention, and blows it up for a quick ratings fix. Unlikely with X Factor looking like it was rigged.
A lot of my audience confessed to be dubious about what I was pitching as all they knew beforehand was that I was what Jeremy Clarkson has dubbed a ‘mentalist. I am glad to say I left with some converts inspired.
And here is my main point. We still very much seem to be in a ‘media rules of engagement-controlled’ era of green being only viewed in black and white.
In the dark green corner are ‘activists’, empowered eco Nazi book-authors, Al Gore, IPCC scientists, certain government ministers (even a newly converted, if confusingly mixed message PM)... and a largely compliant ‘left’ media ready to publish or broadcast relatively unchallenged global warming propaganda.
In the black gold corner are ‘deniers’, empowered ex eco fascist traitor book-authors, a few government ministers (at least out loud, including a confusingly mixed word vs. deed PM)... and a largely compliant ‘right’ media ready to publish or broadcast relatively unchallenged big-oil lobby-funded propaganda.
And all this lot have very lucrative careers already, and ahead, exchanging artillery exchanges of claim and counter claim, accusation and counter accusation at each other. Facts go out the window, as for every one pro, there are a score cons. And one Prof’s howler is another think-tank PhD’s thesis.
Meanwhile, sod all seems to get done.
And stuck in no person’s land, I believe, are the vast majority of folk like those I was with last night, keen to understand the issues and act rationally on them based on halfway decent information and reasoned debate with some objective outcomes.
To me the issue is simple. In ten years time, if one set are right, we can all breathe easier and a few folk are a bit red faced. The down side is that some economically driven development may not take place and... if you subscribe to the views of such as Mr. Durkin or Bjorn Lomborg, there will be serious consequences to the state of health and lives in the Third World.
If the other set are right, breathing at all may be a tad tricky in some parts, and faces will possibly be redder still, now for exterior reasons as well. Those in the Third World, if they are around, may find the rest of us have our own issues to worry about.
So which side should we err on? I’m voting caution. Especially when there are quite a few credible science guys around who seem to be getting us to quite high percent levels of probability. I’m prepared to move before we are 100% sure global warming WAS catastrophic.
I’ll need to dig it from my blog verbatim, but a long time ago I read a good analogy. If you are in a plane full of journalists and aero engineers flying across the Atlantic, and a problem with it’s structure is raised, do you side with the majority of them who think it best to turn back to check, or do you go with the journalists sitting with the guys in Club class who are just getting comfy, and would prefer to stay on course in case it’s nothing?
It would be wrong to say I don’t care about these esoteric debates, but I find them essentially irrelevant. Natural or man made, serious or not, I simply believe that, for the sake of my kids’ kids, every effort needs to be made to reduce pollution and waste and improve efficiencies. Plus match this all with a reasoned downturn in our aspirations and demands for expansion of consumption as they may be leading us on a downward spiral.
And one thing is key. What I call the EnviROI – the return on investment has to help the planet recover, and not just be to sell books, get ratings, secure salaries, careers or pensions, meet targets or make those who think they are more worthy feel warm and fuzzy. So I have all sorts of doubts that get me offside with a lot of folk. I’m not sure about wind turbines. I think the Government has totally screwed up road pricing, which is necessary but I petitioned against on their terms, And anything with the words ‘carbon’ and ‘trading’ bring me out in cold sweat as all I see is vast hordes of even richer City folk going with Guardian journalists and Mr. Miliband to meet other green elites in Bali to discuss it all.
Sadly, like you Ben, in trying to arrive at conclusions, information I can trust is in short supply, and looks like remaining so for a while.
And from the evidence of this blog (with a few notable, and noble opinions and links, for which I am grateful – though oddly the follow up posts by those who saw the show almost all left me none the wiser to those preceding it), I guess I, and most of the population will need to hunker down in our bunkers a while longer as those who claim know better than us argue over who is right.
Me, I’ll just get back to my shed and keep on doing anything I can to improve matters.
I just had a gander at a few of the follow ups, and they kinda prove my point. Death-match, winner takes the first iceberg shuffleboard on the Titanic.
God spare us from those who would tell us what to think... to the death. All of ours.
ADD:
QED.
Just back from my shed. Cripes.
At least a very few have tried to see a middle ground, work within it and understand it enough to work out a positive solution.
But as to the rest.... 'ding'... Round [pick a number]!
Shame.
Guardian - Noxious emissions
For what it's worth (not much, I'd hazard, looking at the comments here), Bad Science has, is and doubtless will be providing a complementary venue for a not dissimilar cock-fighting tournament.
So I'll just cut 'n paste my 2p here.
Indy - Global warming gurus set a bad example
Dear Mr. Lawson,
We're guessing that would make you a 'no' then?
Times - The global warming debate overheats
I’m going to break a firmly held principle and comment on something I have not... yet... seen. Again.
In a certain irony, last night as I expounded to a group at Aston Science Park on how we can harness consumer power to effect positive environmental behavior changes through incentive and reward, my twins had decided that some Japanese cartoon was a better bet on Sky than what I had programmed to record. Let’s hope I am as successful in helping save the planet as the spiky doe-eyed dude and his posse of mutant mates.
What struck me at the event was the enthusiasm of all those present for tangible DOING, as opposed to endless debate on esoteric issues, jockeying to be smarter and righter. And while these were folk from the SME’s prepared to stay from early to late evening, I hope it would not be unfair to say many present were representative of the average, working, Previa and not Prius person general public.
So I wonder what they would have made of this? Doubtless there will be great debate in the eco-media, including such as the Indy and Guardian (no chance to scope the onlines yet, and BBC Breakfast doesn’t seem concerned), but I’m pretty sure it will all pass last night’s group by. Unless an editor scents some headlines from contention, and blows it up for a quick ratings fix. Unlikely with X Factor looking like it was rigged.
A lot of my audience confessed to be dubious about what I was pitching as all they knew beforehand was that I was what Jeremy Clarkson has dubbed a ‘mentalist. I am glad to say I left with some converts inspired.
And here is my main point. We still very much seem to be in a ‘media rules of engagement-controlled’ era of green being only viewed in black and white.
In the dark green corner are ‘activists’, empowered eco Nazi book-authors, Al Gore, IPCC scientists, certain government ministers (even a newly converted, if confusingly mixed message PM)... and a largely compliant ‘left’ media ready to publish or broadcast relatively unchallenged global warming propaganda.
In the black gold corner are ‘deniers’, empowered ex eco fascist traitor book-authors, a few government ministers (at least out loud, including a confusingly mixed word vs. deed PM)... and a largely compliant ‘right’ media ready to publish or broadcast relatively unchallenged big-oil lobby-funded propaganda.
And all this lot have very lucrative careers already, and ahead, exchanging artillery exchanges of claim and counter claim, accusation and counter accusation at each other. Facts go out the window, as for every one pro, there are a score cons. And one Prof’s howler is another think-tank PhD’s thesis.
Meanwhile, sod all seems to get done.
And stuck in no person’s land, I believe, are the vast majority of folk like those I was with last night, keen to understand the issues and act rationally on them based on halfway decent information and reasoned debate with some objective outcomes.
To me the issue is simple. In ten years time, if one set are right, we can all breathe easier and a few folk are a bit red faced. The down side is that some economically driven development may not take place and... if you subscribe to the views of such as Mr. Durkin or Bjorn Lomborg, there will be serious consequences to the state of health and lives in the Third World.
If the other set are right, breathing at all may be a tad tricky in some parts, and faces will possibly be redder still, now for exterior reasons as well. Those in the Third World, if they are around, may find the rest of us have our own issues to worry about.
So which side should we err on? I’m voting caution. Especially when there are quite a few credible science guys around who seem to be getting us to quite high percent levels of probability. I’m prepared to move before we are 100% sure global warming WAS catastrophic.
I’ll need to dig it from my blog verbatim, but a long time ago I read a good analogy. If you are in a plane full of journalists and aero engineers flying across the Atlantic, and a problem with it’s structure is raised, do you side with the majority of them who think it best to turn back to check, or do you go with the journalists sitting with the guys in Club class who are just getting comfy, and would prefer to stay on course in case it’s nothing?
It would be wrong to say I don’t care about these esoteric debates, but I find them essentially irrelevant. Natural or man made, serious or not, I simply believe that, for the sake of my kids’ kids, every effort needs to be made to reduce pollution and waste and improve efficiencies. Plus match this all with a reasoned downturn in our aspirations and demands for expansion of consumption as they may be leading us on a downward spiral.
And one thing is key. What I call the EnviROI – the return on investment has to help the planet recover, and not just be to sell books, get ratings, secure salaries, careers or pensions, meet targets or make those who think they are more worthy feel warm and fuzzy. So I have all sorts of doubts that get me offside with a lot of folk. I’m not sure about wind turbines. I think the Government has totally screwed up road pricing, which is necessary but I petitioned against on their terms, And anything with the words ‘carbon’ and ‘trading’ bring me out in cold sweat as all I see is vast hordes of even richer City folk going with Guardian journalists and Mr. Miliband to meet other green elites in Bali to discuss it all.
Sadly, like you Ben, in trying to arrive at conclusions, information I can trust is in short supply, and looks like remaining so for a while.
And from the evidence of this blog (with a few notable, and noble opinions and links, for which I am grateful – though oddly the follow up posts by those who saw the show almost all left me none the wiser to those preceding it), I guess I, and most of the population will need to hunker down in our bunkers a while longer as those who claim know better than us argue over who is right.
Me, I’ll just get back to my shed and keep on doing anything I can to improve matters.
I just had a gander at a few of the follow ups, and they kinda prove my point. Death-match, winner takes the first iceberg shuffleboard on the Titanic.
God spare us from those who would tell us what to think... to the death. All of ours.
ADD:
QED.
Just back from my shed. Cripes.
At least a very few have tried to see a middle ground, work within it and understand it enough to work out a positive solution.
But as to the rest.... 'ding'... Round [pick a number]!
Shame.
Guardian - Noxious emissions
For what it's worth (not much, I'd hazard, looking at the comments here), Bad Science has, is and doubtless will be providing a complementary venue for a not dissimilar cock-fighting tournament.
So I'll just cut 'n paste my 2p here.
Indy - Global warming gurus set a bad example
Dear Mr. Lawson,
We're guessing that would make you a 'no' then?
Times - The global warming debate overheats
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Careful what you wish for
Channel 4 wants to turn your television into a tip
'Should they locate the parts for, and then manage to assemble a working PC , internet connection and power supply (why not? I saw it done on McGyver), they could do worse than log on to Junkk.com daily to see what they can make and how to make it.
And of course share their own innovations with/for others.
That way we can not just anaylse how we live, but improve it too.
A plan?'
'Should they locate the parts for, and then manage to assemble a working PC , internet connection and power supply (why not? I saw it done on McGyver), they could do worse than log on to Junkk.com daily to see what they can make and how to make it.
And of course share their own innovations with/for others.
That way we can not just anaylse how we live, but improve it too.
A plan?'
Sunday, March 04, 2007
It's always the good ones that seem to fail
I tried to post this to a topical thread, that has already been raised here recently.
I think it warrants its own:
Dear Sirs,
I rather suspect that the reason for my first para is explained by the fact that no one could comment. Error message on upload attempt:
No such entry '014124'.
The rest stands:
I find it rather odd, and sad, that, as I arrive back after a very happy family weekend break to engage in my traditional 'surf and mirth' scope, a little late in the day, of the 'quality' major news media blogosphere, that I seem to be the only person to have found this; or at least felt moved to add a comment... so far. Out of 60M them's poor odds.
Especially if we are facing something potentially none too optimal (if the tipping point to Armageddon can be so described) in around a decade, at least by my understanding of the IPPC report.
Thing is, I find myself in an odd position. I care very much about all this, if only for my kids' sake. I am, by any measure, environmentally concerned, and arguably quite active. I may even be, by dint of taking a greater interest than many, fairly well informed. And, most importantly, I care passionately about DOING something, anything, to avoid unnecessary waste, and to find practical, inspirational ways to assist the consuming public to live more environmentally sound lifestyles by choice, and not nannying, guilt, scare or fine.
So I tend to find talking shops at best frustrating, if not actually downright obstructive, by consuming resources, and energies, that could be used more positively.
Sadly, having read and reread this a few times, I am unable to see how anything has been moved ahead much, save to offer a lifeline to the deniers by denying them the very things that they would deny those with a more precautionary bent (that's a lot of denying in one sentence, sorry, but I call 'em as I see 'em). I don't know if such as Al Gore and those others less celebrity-endowed are dead right or completely wrong, but if they're wrong they'll just look silly in a few decades. If they are right, those who are big-oiling into denial will, along with the rest of us, be looking a little red-faced, and not just from embarrassment. Though I do take the point that most will be long dead and buried, and hence not really in a position to care that their book sales have nosedived.
However, I can only see more ammunition here to enable the artillery barrages from extremes on both sides to continue ever more energetically, leaving those who thirst for information, guidance and action still sitting dazed and confused beneath the literary pyrotechnics that rage.
I may be tired from a period spent well if not wisely, but I stumbled on this in regard to the forthcoming show that has yet to be screened, but already generated such a ferocious counter-movement - 'Certainly, there many reasons to deride it. Its contents are largely untrue, for a start. That is Channel 4's problem.' Now I haven't seen it, but this is quite a thing. 'Largely untrue contents' are pretty much the smoking gun to put down this nag before it even leaves the starting blocks.
But...
I can't for the life of me seem to locate what these untrue contents are, at least from the piece written. What I do get are trash jobs on those involved, and unless I am very much mistaken, and harking to only a few blogs back, this seemed to be a tactic not considered quite cricket when applied to those who are in favour of Al Gore, IPCC , Uncle Tom Cobbly and all in the man-made corner. So which is to be. In gutter? Or stand above it? Deal in facts? Or fling some mud around and hope that what sticks may sway? It's hard to see how this is going to work both ways.
I am prepared to accept, and indeed pretty much hope to see proven, that this programme has opted for dishonest rhetoric, but so far I can only say they are not the only ones dealing in such a thing at the expense of reasoned debate.
Which is a pity, and serves the cause, IMHO, poorly. Especially when, on reaching the concluding several paras here (still none the wiser on Ch4's factual transgressions, mind) there seems to be much about the manipulations being applied by all sides, with very much more short-term, and selfish, agendas, that I can only nod in agreement with.
It would be a shame if this cannot be debated further, and freely.
I think it warrants its own:
Dear Sirs,
I rather suspect that the reason for my first para is explained by the fact that no one could comment. Error message on upload attempt:
No such entry '014124'.
The rest stands:
I find it rather odd, and sad, that, as I arrive back after a very happy family weekend break to engage in my traditional 'surf and mirth' scope, a little late in the day, of the 'quality' major news media blogosphere, that I seem to be the only person to have found this; or at least felt moved to add a comment... so far. Out of 60M them's poor odds.
Especially if we are facing something potentially none too optimal (if the tipping point to Armageddon can be so described) in around a decade, at least by my understanding of the IPPC report.
Thing is, I find myself in an odd position. I care very much about all this, if only for my kids' sake. I am, by any measure, environmentally concerned, and arguably quite active. I may even be, by dint of taking a greater interest than many, fairly well informed. And, most importantly, I care passionately about DOING something, anything, to avoid unnecessary waste, and to find practical, inspirational ways to assist the consuming public to live more environmentally sound lifestyles by choice, and not nannying, guilt, scare or fine.
So I tend to find talking shops at best frustrating, if not actually downright obstructive, by consuming resources, and energies, that could be used more positively.
Sadly, having read and reread this a few times, I am unable to see how anything has been moved ahead much, save to offer a lifeline to the deniers by denying them the very things that they would deny those with a more precautionary bent (that's a lot of denying in one sentence, sorry, but I call 'em as I see 'em). I don't know if such as Al Gore and those others less celebrity-endowed are dead right or completely wrong, but if they're wrong they'll just look silly in a few decades. If they are right, those who are big-oiling into denial will, along with the rest of us, be looking a little red-faced, and not just from embarrassment. Though I do take the point that most will be long dead and buried, and hence not really in a position to care that their book sales have nosedived.
However, I can only see more ammunition here to enable the artillery barrages from extremes on both sides to continue ever more energetically, leaving those who thirst for information, guidance and action still sitting dazed and confused beneath the literary pyrotechnics that rage.
I may be tired from a period spent well if not wisely, but I stumbled on this in regard to the forthcoming show that has yet to be screened, but already generated such a ferocious counter-movement - 'Certainly, there many reasons to deride it. Its contents are largely untrue, for a start. That is Channel 4's problem.' Now I haven't seen it, but this is quite a thing. 'Largely untrue contents' are pretty much the smoking gun to put down this nag before it even leaves the starting blocks.
But...
I can't for the life of me seem to locate what these untrue contents are, at least from the piece written. What I do get are trash jobs on those involved, and unless I am very much mistaken, and harking to only a few blogs back, this seemed to be a tactic not considered quite cricket when applied to those who are in favour of Al Gore, IPCC , Uncle Tom Cobbly and all in the man-made corner. So which is to be. In gutter? Or stand above it? Deal in facts? Or fling some mud around and hope that what sticks may sway? It's hard to see how this is going to work both ways.
I am prepared to accept, and indeed pretty much hope to see proven, that this programme has opted for dishonest rhetoric, but so far I can only say they are not the only ones dealing in such a thing at the expense of reasoned debate.
Which is a pity, and serves the cause, IMHO, poorly. Especially when, on reaching the concluding several paras here (still none the wiser on Ch4's factual transgressions, mind) there seems to be much about the manipulations being applied by all sides, with very much more short-term, and selfish, agendas, that I can only nod in agreement with.
It would be a shame if this cannot be debated further, and freely.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Cat. Pigeons. Small room. Retire immediately.
Dominic Lawson: Here is another inconvenient truth (but this one will infuriate the Green lobby)
In light of my last few blogs, I rather suspect it might.
I take no pleasure in being right, but it is obvious the whole debate has been hijacked by polarised (no pun intended, though it is apt) extremes from either side, leaving a massive void of greater reason and compromise almost (I hope) unable to cope, and fill it for those who do not live and breathe the deepest detail of it all.
Good Lord above, this is the Indy. And here, in the spirit of balance (which is why I carry it here) that its name implies, is the only article of substance I could locate in it today, and it's not... how should we say... exactly helping the cause, hmnn?
I have to admit to being a tad te'ed off, because of course I will now have to watch this debunking, and make a comment. On the strength of this review, it warrants attention.
Who knows, I may soften my views on global warming, its causes and what needs to be done to mitigate the effects.
But I still don't think it will change me much from my mission to DO whatever I can to avoid waste and boost efficiencies whenever and wherever possible.
I'll think I'll leave the hot air thing for others to muck about with some more.
Indy - Global warming: An inconvenient truth or hot air?
Guardian - Why Channel 4 has got it wrong over climate change
I find it rather odd, and sad, that, as I arrive back after a very happy family weekend break to engage in my traditional 'surf and mirth' scope, a little late in the day, of the 'quality' major news media blogosphere, that I seem to be the only person to have found this; or at least felt moved to add a comment... so far. Out of 60M them's poor odds.
Especially if we are facing something potentially none too optimal (if the tipping point to Armageddon can be so described) in around a decade, at least by my understanding of the IPPC report.
Thing is, I find myself in an odd position. I care very much about all this, if only for my kids' sake. I am, by any measure, environmentally concerned, and arguably quite active. I may even be, by dint of taking a greater interest than many, fairly well informed. And, most importantly, I care passionately about DOING something, anything, to avoid unnecessary waste, and to find practical, inspirational ways to assist the consuming public to live more environmentally sound lifestyles by choice, and not nannying, guilt, scare or fine.
So I tend to find talking shops at best frustrating, if not actually downright obstructive, by consuming resources, and energies, that could be used more positively.
Sadly, having read and reread this a few times, I am unable to see how anything has been moved ahead much, save to offer a lifeline to the deniers by denying them the very things that they would deny those with a more precautionary bent (that's a lot of denying in one sentence, sorry, but I call 'em as I see 'em). I don't know if such as Al Gore and those others less celebrity-endowed are dead right or completely wrong, but if they're wrong they'll just look silly in a few decades. If they are right, those who are big-oiling into denial will, along with the rest of us, be looking a little red-faced, and not just from embarrassment. Though I do take the point that most will be long dead and buried, and hence not really in a position to care that their book sales have nosedived.
However, I can only see more ammunition here to enable the artillery barrages from extremes on both sides to continue ever more energetically, leaving those who thirst for information, guidance and action still sitting dazed and confused beneath the literary pyrotechnics that rage.
I may be tired from a period spent well if not wisely, but I stumbled on this in regard to the forthcoming show that has yet to be screened, but already generated such a ferocious counter-movement - 'Certainly, there many reasons to deride it. Its contents are largely untrue, for a start. That is Channel 4's problem.' Now I haven't seen it, but this is quite a thing. 'Largely untrue contents' are pretty much the smoking gun to put down this nag before it even leaves the starting blocks.
But...
I can't for the life of me seem to locate what these untrue contents are, at least from the piece written. What I do get are trash jobs on those involved, and unless I am very much mistaken, and harking to only a few blogs back, this seemed to be a tactic not considered quite cricket when applied to those who are in favour of Al Gore, IPCC , Uncle Tom Cobbly and all in the man-made corner. So which is to be. In gutter? Or stand above it? Deal in facts? Or fling some mud around and hope that what sticks may sway? It's hard to see how this is going to work both ways.
I am prepared to accept, and indeed pretty much hope to see proven, that this programme has opted for dishonest rhetoric, but so far I can only say they are not the only ones dealing in such a thing at the expense of reasoned debate.
Which is a pity, and serves the cause, IMHO, poorly. Especially when, on reaching the concluding several paras here (still none the wiser on Ch4's factual transgressions, mind) there seems to be much about the manipulations being applied by all sides, with very much more short-term, and selfish, agendas, that I can only nod in agreement with.
In light of my last few blogs, I rather suspect it might.
I take no pleasure in being right, but it is obvious the whole debate has been hijacked by polarised (no pun intended, though it is apt) extremes from either side, leaving a massive void of greater reason and compromise almost (I hope) unable to cope, and fill it for those who do not live and breathe the deepest detail of it all.
Good Lord above, this is the Indy. And here, in the spirit of balance (which is why I carry it here) that its name implies, is the only article of substance I could locate in it today, and it's not... how should we say... exactly helping the cause, hmnn?
I have to admit to being a tad te'ed off, because of course I will now have to watch this debunking, and make a comment. On the strength of this review, it warrants attention.
Who knows, I may soften my views on global warming, its causes and what needs to be done to mitigate the effects.
But I still don't think it will change me much from my mission to DO whatever I can to avoid waste and boost efficiencies whenever and wherever possible.
I'll think I'll leave the hot air thing for others to muck about with some more.
Indy - Global warming: An inconvenient truth or hot air?
Guardian - Why Channel 4 has got it wrong over climate change
I find it rather odd, and sad, that, as I arrive back after a very happy family weekend break to engage in my traditional 'surf and mirth' scope, a little late in the day, of the 'quality' major news media blogosphere, that I seem to be the only person to have found this; or at least felt moved to add a comment... so far. Out of 60M them's poor odds.
Especially if we are facing something potentially none too optimal (if the tipping point to Armageddon can be so described) in around a decade, at least by my understanding of the IPPC report.
Thing is, I find myself in an odd position. I care very much about all this, if only for my kids' sake. I am, by any measure, environmentally concerned, and arguably quite active. I may even be, by dint of taking a greater interest than many, fairly well informed. And, most importantly, I care passionately about DOING something, anything, to avoid unnecessary waste, and to find practical, inspirational ways to assist the consuming public to live more environmentally sound lifestyles by choice, and not nannying, guilt, scare or fine.
So I tend to find talking shops at best frustrating, if not actually downright obstructive, by consuming resources, and energies, that could be used more positively.
Sadly, having read and reread this a few times, I am unable to see how anything has been moved ahead much, save to offer a lifeline to the deniers by denying them the very things that they would deny those with a more precautionary bent (that's a lot of denying in one sentence, sorry, but I call 'em as I see 'em). I don't know if such as Al Gore and those others less celebrity-endowed are dead right or completely wrong, but if they're wrong they'll just look silly in a few decades. If they are right, those who are big-oiling into denial will, along with the rest of us, be looking a little red-faced, and not just from embarrassment. Though I do take the point that most will be long dead and buried, and hence not really in a position to care that their book sales have nosedived.
However, I can only see more ammunition here to enable the artillery barrages from extremes on both sides to continue ever more energetically, leaving those who thirst for information, guidance and action still sitting dazed and confused beneath the literary pyrotechnics that rage.
I may be tired from a period spent well if not wisely, but I stumbled on this in regard to the forthcoming show that has yet to be screened, but already generated such a ferocious counter-movement - 'Certainly, there many reasons to deride it. Its contents are largely untrue, for a start. That is Channel 4's problem.' Now I haven't seen it, but this is quite a thing. 'Largely untrue contents' are pretty much the smoking gun to put down this nag before it even leaves the starting blocks.
But...
I can't for the life of me seem to locate what these untrue contents are, at least from the piece written. What I do get are trash jobs on those involved, and unless I am very much mistaken, and harking to only a few blogs back, this seemed to be a tactic not considered quite cricket when applied to those who are in favour of Al Gore, IPCC , Uncle Tom Cobbly and all in the man-made corner. So which is to be. In gutter? Or stand above it? Deal in facts? Or fling some mud around and hope that what sticks may sway? It's hard to see how this is going to work both ways.
I am prepared to accept, and indeed pretty much hope to see proven, that this programme has opted for dishonest rhetoric, but so far I can only say they are not the only ones dealing in such a thing at the expense of reasoned debate.
Which is a pity, and serves the cause, IMHO, poorly. Especially when, on reaching the concluding several paras here (still none the wiser on Ch4's factual transgressions, mind) there seems to be much about the manipulations being applied by all sides, with very much more short-term, and selfish, agendas, that I can only nod in agreement with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)