I tend to avoid the whole 'climate debate'.
At best it seems to be mostly a bunch of folk arguing about the number of angels who dance on the head of a pin; at worst a bunch of entrenched interest groups from two dogmatic extremes lobbing pretty much the same justifications for their views at each other over and over.
I am not saying it is not important, just that I feel it more productive to get on with what I think can help all sides and let others hopefully deal with an area I can see no value in get involved with, bar seeking to ensure the enviROI is always positive.
However, it is a pretty key aspect of many debates, and one thing that always comes up is the difference between 'climate' and 'weather'.
And I would hope these guys would know better than most what it is:
What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate?
Showing posts with label CLIMATE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CLIMATE. Show all posts
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
We're all "doomed", well, some* of us... maybe
It's a great headline: Possible unease over climate model stretching
Well, for a blogger like me it is at least.
I don't usually 'do' climate: too polarised.
But I do do communications, especially how the system persuades the people. And this is a doozy.
All very tricky. And one I don't envy the various 'powers that be', what with the massive authority, moral, trust and every other-wise that they currently enjoy with the (growing, but let's not worry about that) population.
I am just not sure that trying to unease the public into things slowly is quite working on past and present evidence, and when every flurry of climate foreboding is often followed by loooong fallow periods where navels get gazed at and economies get weighed (especially in terms of getting re-elected), if can often come across as tokenistic at best, half... um.. considered or, worse, when taxes heave into view, a tad opportunistic.
I must say that following what has doubtless been a very thorough briefing, that even as supportive a medium as the state broadcaster is littering its latest report with a preponderance of qualifying "quote" marks on every claim is hardly encouraging. *Especially on top of the "might's" and "depending's". The only certainties seem to be that as the grids get smaller, the derriere-covering gets greater. And, IMHO, that negates the whole exercise.
And if eyebrows are cranking here, I can only imagine what they will be like in some media, and how that will in turn be absorbed by some a wee bit preoccupied paying their Mum's annual care bills with less than certain leaders by example reckon is needed annually to sort out swirly ceilings, house ducks or faux timber their 50" TV rooms. Or certain quango senior execs still seem to score mega-bonuses for when what they are supposed to be doing fails and they try and blame the consequences of blocked drains or concreting over greenfields on a bit of weather.
At least Mr. Benn can hold his head high in this regard, but whether a disenchanted, distracted public will notice the distinction is doubtful.
ps: When it says 'on Thursday' on a blog dated Thursday, can I presume we are talking a weeks' time for the launch of this "research"?
Addendum - Having just found this via a Guardian writer Twitter feed, I am guessing not.
Well, for a blogger like me it is at least.
I don't usually 'do' climate: too polarised.
But I do do communications, especially how the system persuades the people. And this is a doozy.
All very tricky. And one I don't envy the various 'powers that be', what with the massive authority, moral, trust and every other-wise that they currently enjoy with the (growing, but let's not worry about that) population.
I am just not sure that trying to unease the public into things slowly is quite working on past and present evidence, and when every flurry of climate foreboding is often followed by loooong fallow periods where navels get gazed at and economies get weighed (especially in terms of getting re-elected), if can often come across as tokenistic at best, half... um.. considered or, worse, when taxes heave into view, a tad opportunistic.
I must say that following what has doubtless been a very thorough briefing, that even as supportive a medium as the state broadcaster is littering its latest report with a preponderance of qualifying "quote" marks on every claim is hardly encouraging. *Especially on top of the "might's" and "depending's". The only certainties seem to be that as the grids get smaller, the derriere-covering gets greater. And, IMHO, that negates the whole exercise.
And if eyebrows are cranking here, I can only imagine what they will be like in some media, and how that will in turn be absorbed by some a wee bit preoccupied paying their Mum's annual care bills with less than certain leaders by example reckon is needed annually to sort out swirly ceilings, house ducks or faux timber their 50" TV rooms. Or certain quango senior execs still seem to score mega-bonuses for when what they are supposed to be doing fails and they try and blame the consequences of blocked drains or concreting over greenfields on a bit of weather.
At least Mr. Benn can hold his head high in this regard, but whether a disenchanted, distracted public will notice the distinction is doubtful.
ps: When it says 'on Thursday' on a blog dated Thursday, can I presume we are talking a weeks' time for the launch of this "research"?
Addendum - Having just found this via a Guardian writer Twitter feed, I am guessing not.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Two wrongs
I don't seek to excuse those who may not be doing as well as they could, or should, by pointing at those who are doing worse, but this is worth looking at so long as it's in objective terms: Kyoto participants under reporting emissions
With the caveat it's a blog I read via another blog (and some of the links seem to drop in and out), so take the opinion as provided by the source, but there are links worth checking.
In particular, it seems counter-productive to bash the USA, and Bush in particular, especially when some do so using information that is plain wrong... or at least selective. You know what happens when you back anyone into a corner... especially sleeping giants that can get filled with terrible resolves.
Surely better to get to a more integrated, inclusive approach asap. Sadly I think those who see their mission (and funding/careers, etc) more in the confrontation zone will prevail.
With the caveat it's a blog I read via another blog (and some of the links seem to drop in and out), so take the opinion as provided by the source, but there are links worth checking.
In particular, it seems counter-productive to bash the USA, and Bush in particular, especially when some do so using information that is plain wrong... or at least selective. You know what happens when you back anyone into a corner... especially sleeping giants that can get filled with terrible resolves.
Surely better to get to a more integrated, inclusive approach asap. Sadly I think those who see their mission (and funding/careers, etc) more in the confrontation zone will prevail.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
I post this. And simply wonder why it is not on every other front page
The Earth today stands in imminent peril'...and nothing short of a planetary rescue will save it from the environmental cataclysm of dangerous climate change. Those are not the words of eco-warriors but the considered opinion of a group of eminent scientists writing in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.'
It's fairly clear-cut. And not too encouraging, really.
So why are we all not popping down to B&Q to get our self-assembly ark kit?
There could be many reasons. Climate fatigue, maybe? A bit like charity fatigue, only we're no longer up for saving ourselves.
Or a few too many headlines like this, that go on to copy like this: 'Six scientists from some of the leading scientific institutions in the United States...'. And an awful lot of ''might may be right".
I don't know. So I still wonder. And that... may be the problem.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Gee, eight guys talking. And some.
Warm words won't save us
I am interested, and hence would value any others' views, on the relative merits of what gets hyped, talked about... and actually addressed, for anything other than political, activist or ratings-driven agendas.
For instance, the other day I stumbled across what seemed to me an extraordinary discrepancy in positive climate word vs. deed, or effort vs. result, in the form of the launch of Cool Earth
Now, I stand ready to be persuaded otherwise, but if a years' worth of deforestation is responsible for a greater CO2 consequence (in terms of absorption) than the entire pollution (a mate of mine has pointed out that word seems to have been dropped in favour of 'emissions', with consequentially rosier allusions) created by the USA, then surely this warrants a serious mention at least? Or at least decent debate?
Or are we going to keep on with all this faffing about, arguing about who says what, with the big stuff locked in inertia and eco-chancers making capital out of sideshows?
I truly wish for clear leadership, and non-agenda-skewed information, based on genuine enviROIs, such that I can make decisions and act to improve my kids' future chances.
BBC - How Gr8 is G8?
I am interested, and hence would value any others' views, on the relative merits of what gets hyped, talked about... and actually addressed, for anything other than political, activist or ratings-driven agendas.
For instance, the other day I stumbled across what seemed to me an extraordinary discrepancy in positive climate word vs. deed, or effort vs. result, in the form of the launch of Cool Earth
Now, I stand ready to be persuaded otherwise, but if a years' worth of deforestation is responsible for a greater CO2 consequence (in terms of absorption) than the entire pollution (a mate of mine has pointed out that word seems to have been dropped in favour of 'emissions', with consequentially rosier allusions) created by the USA, then surely this warrants a serious mention at least? Or at least decent debate?
Or are we going to keep on with all this faffing about, arguing about who says what, with the big stuff locked in inertia and eco-chancers making capital out of sideshows?
I truly wish for clear leadership, and non-agenda-skewed information, based on genuine enviROIs, such that I can make decisions and act to improve my kids' future chances.
BBC - How Gr8 is G8?
Interesting word, Wind. It can mean so many things.
There is the cool breeze. The less welcome result of combining beer, beans and a teenager. Or, of course, when pronounced and applied differently it can be a verb, as in 'to wind up'.
Change is in the wind as business climate turns green
Next week, courtesy of one of the speakers (David North of Tesco - to whom I am most grateful for the invitation), I have a rare opportunity to be present as a guest at one of these rarefied events: the Guardian Climate Change Summit.
Sadly, I missed the one referred to above. It will be interesting to see how they compare, or at least how my views tally with those of the correspondent responsible for this piece.
It's an interesting one, because it seems to be trying to be a few things at once, at least beyond the facts. In part supportive, and justifiably positive about genuine initiatives, but also in part pretty cautious, lest the promises fall short in the cold, hard light of subsequent days.
Frankly I am not sure what to expect next week, and will look forward to what I hope is a good opportunity to network, learn and contribute. I will of course be sharing it all here.
This Guardian piece is, at least, a fair preparation. It seems unlikely that those attending the same conference as I am will be much different to the other one, though on current evidence there are a heck of a lot of conferences with a heck of a lot of folk tasked to attend them, with titles to match. How "Junkk Male/Big 'Ed" will fit with "head of climate change" or "head of environmental management" or "climate change leader" remains to be seen. I think I will have to bite my lip and resist the temptation, at least with the climate change variety, and not ask them to confirm that they are least tasked with 'heading', or 'leading' it in a positive direction. Or just how far from the boardroom table where the money decisions get made they actually are.
There is no doubting it has indeed become a big issue for such as consumer brands, but I do note and also understand the scepticism created, after all that has been expended to date, of just 14% admitting to having a clear strategy for tackling the issue, while many fund managers saw companies primarily motivated by a desire to get "the green fraternity off their backs". Ouch.
And then there is the vast industry that exists to feed of this... concern... which I'm still trying to identify (ie: sincerely tackling the issue, or getting folk off various backs?). Just one 'consultancy' has a staff of 3,000! Doing what? I feel my ROI eyebrow raising to match the enviROI one here. If it is all about opportunity, I would dearly love to know how that is defined in terms of what gets spent to make my kids' future better. And I'd like to ask such as Jonathan Porritt, but he has yet to return my calls. Too busy? No money in it? Who can tell? Shame, as they are but a few miles away and I'd love to swap notes.
I was surprised at the research that indicated almost three in four British families would boycott firms that do not take real steps to cut their environmental impact. Really? I care a lot, but a boycott against a failure to act with 'real' steps, whatever they are. What is the measure? And, practically, if your local is Morrisons, are you going to go to the Tesco in the next town over just because 'a step' is not so good in comparison? I don't get it. And hence I don't trust it... or like it. Smacks of more no-people scoring fees to stir already very murky waters.
And, yet again, packaging seems the thrust when, as noted in recent blogs, I really have my doubts as to what significance it, or several other much-hyped 'issues' have vs. such as deforestation.
Maybe someone I'll bump into will be able to tell me, and in a way that makes me believe them. I hope so.
Change is in the wind as business climate turns green
Next week, courtesy of one of the speakers (David North of Tesco - to whom I am most grateful for the invitation), I have a rare opportunity to be present as a guest at one of these rarefied events: the Guardian Climate Change Summit.
Sadly, I missed the one referred to above. It will be interesting to see how they compare, or at least how my views tally with those of the correspondent responsible for this piece.
It's an interesting one, because it seems to be trying to be a few things at once, at least beyond the facts. In part supportive, and justifiably positive about genuine initiatives, but also in part pretty cautious, lest the promises fall short in the cold, hard light of subsequent days.
Frankly I am not sure what to expect next week, and will look forward to what I hope is a good opportunity to network, learn and contribute. I will of course be sharing it all here.
This Guardian piece is, at least, a fair preparation. It seems unlikely that those attending the same conference as I am will be much different to the other one, though on current evidence there are a heck of a lot of conferences with a heck of a lot of folk tasked to attend them, with titles to match. How "Junkk Male/Big 'Ed" will fit with "head of climate change" or "head of environmental management" or "climate change leader" remains to be seen. I think I will have to bite my lip and resist the temptation, at least with the climate change variety, and not ask them to confirm that they are least tasked with 'heading', or 'leading' it in a positive direction. Or just how far from the boardroom table where the money decisions get made they actually are.
There is no doubting it has indeed become a big issue for such as consumer brands, but I do note and also understand the scepticism created, after all that has been expended to date, of just 14% admitting to having a clear strategy for tackling the issue, while many fund managers saw companies primarily motivated by a desire to get "the green fraternity off their backs". Ouch.
And then there is the vast industry that exists to feed of this... concern... which I'm still trying to identify (ie: sincerely tackling the issue, or getting folk off various backs?). Just one 'consultancy' has a staff of 3,000! Doing what? I feel my ROI eyebrow raising to match the enviROI one here. If it is all about opportunity, I would dearly love to know how that is defined in terms of what gets spent to make my kids' future better. And I'd like to ask such as Jonathan Porritt, but he has yet to return my calls. Too busy? No money in it? Who can tell? Shame, as they are but a few miles away and I'd love to swap notes.
I was surprised at the research that indicated almost three in four British families would boycott firms that do not take real steps to cut their environmental impact. Really? I care a lot, but a boycott against a failure to act with 'real' steps, whatever they are. What is the measure? And, practically, if your local is Morrisons, are you going to go to the Tesco in the next town over just because 'a step' is not so good in comparison? I don't get it. And hence I don't trust it... or like it. Smacks of more no-people scoring fees to stir already very murky waters.
And, yet again, packaging seems the thrust when, as noted in recent blogs, I really have my doubts as to what significance it, or several other much-hyped 'issues' have vs. such as deforestation.
Maybe someone I'll bump into will be able to tell me, and in a way that makes me believe them. I hope so.
Monday, June 04, 2007
It probably makes more sense in Chinese
At least I hope it does: China says climate policy must make room for growth
Friday, May 18, 2007
They are cracking me up!
Before I go to bed, I just have to get off my chest the latest idiocy from out national broadcaster.
A few years ago, a dirty great lump of ice in the middle of the Canadian wastewaters broke off.
Now, it is probably not a good thing, and possibly a further sign, should we need it, of a warming trend climatically. So far, so factual.
But what do we get? Po-faced, the anchor announces that: 'this is what it could have looked like; before we get what seemed like a cut-price CGI animatic to the opening sequence of Ice Age, the movie. Basically a cartoon of a white thing with a crack running along it.
Then, just for good measure, we get a blow by blow account of the BBC reporter and team struggling, you guessed it, to get there in a chartered airplane to stand on this two year old lump of floating ice, '...to understand what may have caused this'.
For some reason, all watching thought this more of an effective p*ss take than the preceding Have I Got New For You, and fell off their chairs laughing. I sooo feel my licence fee is being well spent.
ADDENDUM - yes, it's now also on the web: Mission to Ice Island - 'you can follow the progress of myself and producer Mark Georgiou and cameraman Duncan Stone.'
A few years ago, a dirty great lump of ice in the middle of the Canadian wastewaters broke off.
Now, it is probably not a good thing, and possibly a further sign, should we need it, of a warming trend climatically. So far, so factual.
But what do we get? Po-faced, the anchor announces that: 'this is what it could have looked like; before we get what seemed like a cut-price CGI animatic to the opening sequence of Ice Age, the movie. Basically a cartoon of a white thing with a crack running along it.
Then, just for good measure, we get a blow by blow account of the BBC reporter and team struggling, you guessed it, to get there in a chartered airplane to stand on this two year old lump of floating ice, '...to understand what may have caused this'.
For some reason, all watching thought this more of an effective p*ss take than the preceding Have I Got New For You, and fell off their chairs laughing. I sooo feel my licence fee is being well spent.
ADDENDUM - yes, it's now also on the web: Mission to Ice Island - 'you can follow the progress of myself and producer Mark Georgiou and cameraman Duncan Stone.'
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
News, new, slow news day
I don't really have much to lose with most parts (a few nice, notable, exceptions, who are the only ones likely to be reading this) of the BBC these days, so what the hey.
Turned on at 5.30am to get straight into day whatever of the Maddyfest. Concerned journalists and anchors here and there swapping war stories about how the beastly Portuguese coppers don't give press conferences BECAUSE THEY ... ER... 'WE' NEED TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON!!!! No irony at all when they interview a Brit policeman who mutters that maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing here to be allowed to get on with their jobs rather than having to tell the bad guys (I didn't mean the media, but...) every ten seconds what they may or may not be doing to satisfy the demands of the media.
And now, having got that off my chest, here is the rest of the news.
Seems a highly-funded bunch of academics has announced a study that pumping out endless 'We're all toast' climate change doom 'n gloom stories to a willing and eager ratings machine such as our media... isn't helping much. Check back a few years to see why I can only ponder, with some rueful shaking of head, that I wish I'd said that. Oh, I did. Along with a few (not many) others. And I told a few media outlets, such as the BBC, but maybe offering a word of caution on the responsibility of outrageous reporting wasn't quite in keeping with their journalistic standards of... 'WE'RE ALL DOOMED! - say eco-activists with book tours', vs. 'NO, WE'RE NOT! - say big-oil funded deniers'. Which ever way, the ratings flames are fanned to good effect by those less interested in the truth, accuracy and a better future tomorrow, than a good headline today.
And so we come to Declan, 'discussing' (if that is what his slot can be called) train travel today, looking as cute and cuddly as ever in his Thomas the Tank outfit on the footplate of a steam train. Now, remind me, how do these things work? Oh, yes, they burn vast amounts of of coal, and not very efficiently belch it out of their smokestack. Ah, well, a little artistic licence in the name of good TV, eh? But one wonders when he'll be off to the Arctic to 'study' global warming.
Anyway, a point was made. The eco-family tested out a train and the car. Train = fun. Car = chore. No contest. But... Train = loadsamunny, plus lots more per person. Oops. There's also the small matter of where you are setting off from and going to. Plus flexibility. And convenience. And...
I am leaving soon for the first day of the Total Packaging Show at the NEC. I need to get there, do the biz and get back. Money, time and convenience. On a good day in the car outside of rush-hour I can get there in about an hour, and back to get in more work, for about a tenner in petrol. In that time I may just about have got a bus to Gloucester to the station, if one runs at the right time and there is a train. And I have a family to feed by every minute of my day being used to try and make my business work. Because the demands of those in power require that.
Sorry, no contest. So I am not sure what point was served by the piece, as it merely served to confirm my situation. As far as I was aware, not one jot of 'discussion' about how to improve matters was attempted. Plus ca change...
But I think they are flying more reporters to the Iberian Peninsula. The weather is lovely there at this time of year, I gather.
Indy - Wild theories and a warped sense of priorities - at least they didn't also put the latest 'scoop' on the front page.
Indy - Reporting The Hunt For Madeleine: Media and police collide on the Algarve - Has a nice sense of irony and moral outrage, though you do suspect they are also not averse to feeding off it all. One thing that does come across, to me at least, is how sidelined the actual finding of the little girl has become to the process of reporting upon the cirrus surrounding it.
Turned on at 5.30am to get straight into day whatever of the Maddyfest. Concerned journalists and anchors here and there swapping war stories about how the beastly Portuguese coppers don't give press conferences BECAUSE THEY ... ER... 'WE' NEED TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON!!!! No irony at all when they interview a Brit policeman who mutters that maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing here to be allowed to get on with their jobs rather than having to tell the bad guys (I didn't mean the media, but...) every ten seconds what they may or may not be doing to satisfy the demands of the media.
And now, having got that off my chest, here is the rest of the news.
Seems a highly-funded bunch of academics has announced a study that pumping out endless 'We're all toast' climate change doom 'n gloom stories to a willing and eager ratings machine such as our media... isn't helping much. Check back a few years to see why I can only ponder, with some rueful shaking of head, that I wish I'd said that. Oh, I did. Along with a few (not many) others. And I told a few media outlets, such as the BBC, but maybe offering a word of caution on the responsibility of outrageous reporting wasn't quite in keeping with their journalistic standards of... 'WE'RE ALL DOOMED! - say eco-activists with book tours', vs. 'NO, WE'RE NOT! - say big-oil funded deniers'. Which ever way, the ratings flames are fanned to good effect by those less interested in the truth, accuracy and a better future tomorrow, than a good headline today.
And so we come to Declan, 'discussing' (if that is what his slot can be called) train travel today, looking as cute and cuddly as ever in his Thomas the Tank outfit on the footplate of a steam train. Now, remind me, how do these things work? Oh, yes, they burn vast amounts of of coal, and not very efficiently belch it out of their smokestack. Ah, well, a little artistic licence in the name of good TV, eh? But one wonders when he'll be off to the Arctic to 'study' global warming.
Anyway, a point was made. The eco-family tested out a train and the car. Train = fun. Car = chore. No contest. But... Train = loadsamunny, plus lots more per person. Oops. There's also the small matter of where you are setting off from and going to. Plus flexibility. And convenience. And...
I am leaving soon for the first day of the Total Packaging Show at the NEC. I need to get there, do the biz and get back. Money, time and convenience. On a good day in the car outside of rush-hour I can get there in about an hour, and back to get in more work, for about a tenner in petrol. In that time I may just about have got a bus to Gloucester to the station, if one runs at the right time and there is a train. And I have a family to feed by every minute of my day being used to try and make my business work. Because the demands of those in power require that.
Sorry, no contest. So I am not sure what point was served by the piece, as it merely served to confirm my situation. As far as I was aware, not one jot of 'discussion' about how to improve matters was attempted. Plus ca change...
But I think they are flying more reporters to the Iberian Peninsula. The weather is lovely there at this time of year, I gather.
Indy - Wild theories and a warped sense of priorities - at least they didn't also put the latest 'scoop' on the front page.
Indy - Reporting The Hunt For Madeleine: Media and police collide on the Algarve - Has a nice sense of irony and moral outrage, though you do suspect they are also not averse to feeding off it all. One thing that does come across, to me at least, is how sidelined the actual finding of the little girl has become to the process of reporting upon the cirrus surrounding it.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
The Summit of All Ears... and what action?
I've mentioned this before, and will doubtless mention it again... until I move from being a struggling and in need of help and connections business, to being nice and comfy and no longer in need of much except a cushy lifestyle surrounded by my fellow green elite.
For I have just had yet another 'invitation' - with major price tag attached - to attend yet another summit discussing things green and how to profit from them, this time from Alan Rusbridger, Editor of the Guardian: The Guardian Climate Change Summit 2007
It is 'a must-attend event for all directors and managers wanting to be at the forefront of solving the carbon challenge'. Well, unless you are not quite up for the £1k price tag for the day, once fee, travel and accommodation are totalled up.
I would like to go, as it could be of use to me and, who knows, I could have something to offer. Just look who is going to be there:
Peter Ainsworth MP, shadow secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs
Keith Allott, head of climate change, WWF
Kathryn Barker, head of environment, BAA
Paul Dawson, director, Barclays Capital
Richard Gillies, director of store development, design and procurement, Marks & Spencer
Adrian Hewitt, energy and sustainability manager, Merton Borough Council
Senior executive, HSBC
Chris Huhne MP, shadow environment, food and rural affairs secretary
Andrew Jones, senior manager, energy and environment, Boots
Tony Juniper, executive director, Friends of the Earth
Sir David King, chief scientific advisor to HM Government and head of the Office of Science and Innovation
Simon Lewis, group corporate affairs director, Vodafone
Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London
Caroline Lucas, Green Member of the European Parliament
Paul Monaghan, head of ethics and sustainability, Co-operative Group
David North, community and government affairs director, Tesco
Ian Pearson MP, minister of state for climate change and environment
Jonathon Porritt, founder director, Forum for the Future
James Smith, chairman, Shell UK ltd
Ben Stimson, director corporate responsibility, BskyB
Karl Whiteman, Managing Director, Berkeley Homes (Central London)
Confirmed facilitators (for sector specific breakout sessions):
Simon Mills head of sustainable development unit, City of London
Bill Clark, sustainability policy manager, Southampton City Council
Nick Coad, head of group environmental strategy, National Express Group
Jo Confino, executive editor, the Guardian
James Stacey, head of sustainable business, Standard Chartered
But then again, what chance would I have of actually meeting them? They will be in the VIP enclosure or up there speaking. I would just be a face in the crowd and maybe get to chat to a few guys around me who may ask about my Vac:Sac, which is my mobile billboard.
Frankly, unless you are speaking, it hardly seems worth the money or effort.
However, I may have a rummage round the sponsors list to see who I can try and blag an invite from.
You never know, they could feel having someone from less rarefied places may bring them closer to earth, where the rest of us live.
For I have just had yet another 'invitation' - with major price tag attached - to attend yet another summit discussing things green and how to profit from them, this time from Alan Rusbridger, Editor of the Guardian: The Guardian Climate Change Summit 2007
It is 'a must-attend event for all directors and managers wanting to be at the forefront of solving the carbon challenge'. Well, unless you are not quite up for the £1k price tag for the day, once fee, travel and accommodation are totalled up.
I would like to go, as it could be of use to me and, who knows, I could have something to offer. Just look who is going to be there:
Peter Ainsworth MP, shadow secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs
Keith Allott, head of climate change, WWF
Kathryn Barker, head of environment, BAA
Paul Dawson, director, Barclays Capital
Richard Gillies, director of store development, design and procurement, Marks & Spencer
Adrian Hewitt, energy and sustainability manager, Merton Borough Council
Senior executive, HSBC
Chris Huhne MP, shadow environment, food and rural affairs secretary
Andrew Jones, senior manager, energy and environment, Boots
Tony Juniper, executive director, Friends of the Earth
Sir David King, chief scientific advisor to HM Government and head of the Office of Science and Innovation
Simon Lewis, group corporate affairs director, Vodafone
Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London
Caroline Lucas, Green Member of the European Parliament
Paul Monaghan, head of ethics and sustainability, Co-operative Group
David North, community and government affairs director, Tesco
Ian Pearson MP, minister of state for climate change and environment
Jonathon Porritt, founder director, Forum for the Future
James Smith, chairman, Shell UK ltd
Ben Stimson, director corporate responsibility, BskyB
Karl Whiteman, Managing Director, Berkeley Homes (Central London)
Confirmed facilitators (for sector specific breakout sessions):
Simon Mills head of sustainable development unit, City of London
Bill Clark, sustainability policy manager, Southampton City Council
Nick Coad, head of group environmental strategy, National Express Group
Jo Confino, executive editor, the Guardian
James Stacey, head of sustainable business, Standard Chartered
But then again, what chance would I have of actually meeting them? They will be in the VIP enclosure or up there speaking. I would just be a face in the crowd and maybe get to chat to a few guys around me who may ask about my Vac:Sac, which is my mobile billboard.
Frankly, unless you are speaking, it hardly seems worth the money or effort.
However, I may have a rummage round the sponsors list to see who I can try and blag an invite from.
You never know, they could feel having someone from less rarefied places may bring them closer to earth, where the rest of us live.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Studying to death?
I quick Grinch-risking missive to the Beeb:
Dear Sirs,
Re: Antarctic Global Warming Prizes
While the theory behind this initiative, and the ideas it inspired are to be applauded, I have to wonder at the prizes.
Our polar wastelands seem to be getting pretty crowded these days with people traveling there (often with film crews in tow) to 'study the effects', one presumes with certain irony, of people traveling there.
And did I hear right that the runner up prizes were for... travel?
http://www.iceedge.co.uk/
Just watched some winners (with a few non-winners sounding typically much more interesting actual solutions as opposed to TV-friendly gimmicks).
Further to my Grinch views, I thought the comments were telling: 'Well, it is a dilemma flying up there, but at least getting to see it before it goes will be amazing'.
Hmn, indeed. Maybe we should all go up and catch it before it has gone then?
Then I read this:
Binge-flying culture is just beginning. The only way to stop it is a severe tax
As an environmentally-concerned individual, I face the dilemma of being married to a Singaporean with all the family-related annual travel consequences that creates (no flights for several years now, but wife and kids do deserve to see their folks soon). Sadly, time and money preclude the options of other alternatives, unless I can get sponsored on a slow travel blog by some green-minded newspaper. However, unless you are a mate of the editor that may be a dodgy sell, as people may tire of 'I'm spending a year having a hoot doing no work... and getting paid for it' efforts by now.
It does rather seem the travel issue is getting more and more polarised, if you'll forgive the pun... bearing in mind what follows.
Today I watched BBC Breakfast News with what seemed like an excellent initiative to encourage kids to come up with some ideas (a few which that were perhaps less televisual not getting the credit they deserved, IMHO. Chewing gum will sort climate change?) to tackle global warming.
The prize? A trip to see the polar regions before they disappear because, one presumes, of people going to see them before they disappear.
And the runner up prizes were... travel!
There is quite an interesting industry being created in saving, and promoting the saving of this planet.
Shame it seems there is little actual desire or effort to actually get around to actually doing it in favour of hype, spin and a quick slot on the TV.
Dear Sirs,
Re: Antarctic Global Warming Prizes
While the theory behind this initiative, and the ideas it inspired are to be applauded, I have to wonder at the prizes.
Our polar wastelands seem to be getting pretty crowded these days with people traveling there (often with film crews in tow) to 'study the effects', one presumes with certain irony, of people traveling there.
And did I hear right that the runner up prizes were for... travel?
http://www.iceedge.co.uk/
Just watched some winners (with a few non-winners sounding typically much more interesting actual solutions as opposed to TV-friendly gimmicks).
Further to my Grinch views, I thought the comments were telling: 'Well, it is a dilemma flying up there, but at least getting to see it before it goes will be amazing'.
Hmn, indeed. Maybe we should all go up and catch it before it has gone then?
Then I read this:
Binge-flying culture is just beginning. The only way to stop it is a severe tax
As an environmentally-concerned individual, I face the dilemma of being married to a Singaporean with all the family-related annual travel consequences that creates (no flights for several years now, but wife and kids do deserve to see their folks soon). Sadly, time and money preclude the options of other alternatives, unless I can get sponsored on a slow travel blog by some green-minded newspaper. However, unless you are a mate of the editor that may be a dodgy sell, as people may tire of 'I'm spending a year having a hoot doing no work... and getting paid for it' efforts by now.
It does rather seem the travel issue is getting more and more polarised, if you'll forgive the pun... bearing in mind what follows.
Today I watched BBC Breakfast News with what seemed like an excellent initiative to encourage kids to come up with some ideas (a few which that were perhaps less televisual not getting the credit they deserved, IMHO. Chewing gum will sort climate change?) to tackle global warming.
The prize? A trip to see the polar regions before they disappear because, one presumes, of people going to see them before they disappear.
And the runner up prizes were... travel!
There is quite an interesting industry being created in saving, and promoting the saving of this planet.
Shame it seems there is little actual desire or effort to actually get around to actually doing it in favour of hype, spin and a quick slot on the TV.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Stop interupting me with proactive ideas. I have a deabte to win!
I am pretty committed to not bothering any more with the debates about climate change as they are so predictable from instigation to the flame wars that follow. But, hey...
There is climate change censorship - and it's the deniers who dish it out
Meanwhile...back on THIS planet.
Reading all this I was thinking how clever it was to have a banner ad to match a post about climate change that said something like 'How do you like things... Hot?' or 'Cold?''. Then I realised it was targeted at Guardian readers planning their next holidays abroad... a long way abroad.
Bless. Still, it's good to talk.
There is climate change censorship - and it's the deniers who dish it out
Meanwhile...back on THIS planet.
Reading all this I was thinking how clever it was to have a banner ad to match a post about climate change that said something like 'How do you like things... Hot?' or 'Cold?''. Then I realised it was targeted at Guardian readers planning their next holidays abroad... a long way abroad.
Bless. Still, it's good to talk.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Poor coral reef spoils diving. Meanwhile, in other news, the planet collapses
An interesting twist on IPCC 2, the sequel.
I haven't quite figured out yet how or why this drib is drabbing out, but we have another doom & gloom from 'them', whoever 'they' are.
But this time it seems to have been designed on another tack. Rather than talk about the totality of it all and how it affects every one of us, the move seems to now be from fear to guilt.
So 'we' are now being told that 'our' behaviour is going to hurt 'them'.
As I say... interesting. If we can't be motivated by threats to our personal situation, I wonder how effective it will be to play it that the Easter holiday flight is hurting a herdsman in Africa.
BBC - Billions face climate change risk
LATimes - Dire warming report too soft, scientists say
Reuters - Stark climate change warning
ADDENDUM - Kids bear brunt of climate warming - report - What next... or the bunny gets it? This seems to be a slight sledgehammer approach where I would advise more caution. Still, what's done is done. Hope it works.
I haven't quite figured out yet how or why this drib is drabbing out, but we have another doom & gloom from 'them', whoever 'they' are.
But this time it seems to have been designed on another tack. Rather than talk about the totality of it all and how it affects every one of us, the move seems to now be from fear to guilt.
So 'we' are now being told that 'our' behaviour is going to hurt 'them'.
As I say... interesting. If we can't be motivated by threats to our personal situation, I wonder how effective it will be to play it that the Easter holiday flight is hurting a herdsman in Africa.
BBC - Billions face climate change risk
LATimes - Dire warming report too soft, scientists say
Reuters - Stark climate change warning
ADDENDUM - Kids bear brunt of climate warming - report - What next... or the bunny gets it? This seems to be a slight sledgehammer approach where I would advise more caution. Still, what's done is done. Hope it works.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Irony is in short supply, too
It is great to be back at home, in a well, naturally-lit room (or, preferably, outdoors) with my kids around me. However, some aspects of this job I really dread.
High on the list is watching the BBC 'News'.
This lunchtime there was yet another piece on climate change. One reporter sent to Brussels to cover the latest conference (apparently, something needs to be done). One reporter sent to Mexico where some lake is receding and the locals want something done as they are losing the tourist visitors (is there such a thing as double irony?), and one course another sent to Antarctica to talk on a video phone about why all this travelling we're doing (presumably going to report from a blizzard some decent CGI could knock up... or even a nice backdrop, is not an option) is not helping.
Still, it was nice all the folk interviewed at Heathrow were really thinking of not going to Florida again this year, and maybe would just cut down to Europe or the Med.
And speaking of Heathrow, wasn't it nice to see those two helicopters taking the captive sailors off to Devon?
BBC - Europe diary: Cars and lobbyists - Not sure, but I do belive a different reporter to the Brussels one above
Just watched BBC Lunchtime News and one of the main features was this latest climate change fest. I was just wondering if Mr. Mardell was the UK reporter from this venue, as opposed to the one in Mexico by the lake that's getting no more tourists because of global warming (double irony?) or the one who flew to the Arctic to 'report' live on how flying to the Arctic is causing a problem (triple irony?).
High on the list is watching the BBC 'News'.
This lunchtime there was yet another piece on climate change. One reporter sent to Brussels to cover the latest conference (apparently, something needs to be done). One reporter sent to Mexico where some lake is receding and the locals want something done as they are losing the tourist visitors (is there such a thing as double irony?), and one course another sent to Antarctica to talk on a video phone about why all this travelling we're doing (presumably going to report from a blizzard some decent CGI could knock up... or even a nice backdrop, is not an option) is not helping.
Still, it was nice all the folk interviewed at Heathrow were really thinking of not going to Florida again this year, and maybe would just cut down to Europe or the Med.
And speaking of Heathrow, wasn't it nice to see those two helicopters taking the captive sailors off to Devon?
BBC - Europe diary: Cars and lobbyists - Not sure, but I do belive a different reporter to the Brussels one above
Just watched BBC Lunchtime News and one of the main features was this latest climate change fest. I was just wondering if Mr. Mardell was the UK reporter from this venue, as opposed to the one in Mexico by the lake that's getting no more tourists because of global warming (double irony?) or the one who flew to the Arctic to 'report' live on how flying to the Arctic is causing a problem (triple irony?).
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Title Fight #2 - the US primaries!
More prompted by Grist:
The latest debate on 'overselling' climate science
In an earlier post on these pages I have cautioned against a defensive mentality... Hiding behind the veracity of science is comforting as a justification, but care must be taken that one only sees one aspect of science as 'the truth', and remains didactic in fighting from only that corner. These are challenges to be addressed...
But in light of a few posts above I'd like to share an exchange I had in the UK media:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/it-must-be-true-i-read-it-in-paper.html
---
Titles matter.
Does an Ace beat a King? A King a Queen, etc.
Of course, there is the small matter of the Jester.
Because when it comes to climate science, this has become key.
I am guessing a Professor beats a Doctor, but maybe not.
Then there are qualifiers.
Does 'eminent' mean more than 'noted'. And in what combination?
And is the quiet guy, who knows his/her stuff and gets on with it, better to explain than the one with a slick sound bite and speed dial to the media?
Frankly, I do not know what to believe any more, because I do not know who to believe.
Pity.
---
To which I had what I consider a fun, but still helpful reply:
---
Personally I'd be inclined to proceed by a lexicographic ordering on the following:
1. area of specialisation (climatology > geology > chemistry > mathematics > other science > arts, etc.);
2. level of qualification (in the UK, professor > senior fellow > lecturer > postdoc > PhD student > graduate), i.e. prefer the lecturer in geology to the PhD student in the same subject;
3. host institution, i.e. when faced with conflicting opinions from two climatology professors, prefer the Oxford professor to the one hosted by some US big-oil thinktank.
---
Sadly the majority of the other artillery exchanges mirrored those I too often see here.
To make it a more of a global wa... rming affair, you may enjoy playing with these too: http://www.badscience.net/?p=386
The latest debate on 'overselling' climate science
In an earlier post on these pages I have cautioned against a defensive mentality... Hiding behind the veracity of science is comforting as a justification, but care must be taken that one only sees one aspect of science as 'the truth', and remains didactic in fighting from only that corner. These are challenges to be addressed...
But in light of a few posts above I'd like to share an exchange I had in the UK media:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/it-must-be-true-i-read-it-in-paper.html
---
Titles matter.
Does an Ace beat a King? A King a Queen, etc.
Of course, there is the small matter of the Jester.
Because when it comes to climate science, this has become key.
I am guessing a Professor beats a Doctor, but maybe not.
Then there are qualifiers.
Does 'eminent' mean more than 'noted'. And in what combination?
And is the quiet guy, who knows his/her stuff and gets on with it, better to explain than the one with a slick sound bite and speed dial to the media?
Frankly, I do not know what to believe any more, because I do not know who to believe.
Pity.
---
To which I had what I consider a fun, but still helpful reply:
---
Personally I'd be inclined to proceed by a lexicographic ordering on the following:
1. area of specialisation (climatology > geology > chemistry > mathematics > other science > arts, etc.);
2. level of qualification (in the UK, professor > senior fellow > lecturer > postdoc > PhD student > graduate), i.e. prefer the lecturer in geology to the PhD student in the same subject;
3. host institution, i.e. when faced with conflicting opinions from two climatology professors, prefer the Oxford professor to the one hosted by some US big-oil thinktank.
---
Sadly the majority of the other artillery exchanges mirrored those I too often see here.
To make it a more of a global wa... rming affair, you may enjoy playing with these too: http://www.badscience.net/?p=386
Mirror, mirror
I rely on the very excellent Grist for many things, and will continue to do so, but where it strays into Global Warming territory I think they are in danger of losing the plot. I don't doubt their sincerity, but as to the methodology... well, they've lost me.
A long rant about facts, persuasion, and global warming
'If only God the gift had gae us, to see oursel's as others see us'
Robert Burns
Re: A long rant about facts, persuasion, and global warming
I guess it's OK here (though while I am personally interested, I don't feel qualified and hence any more able to stay adequately focused on all this, possibly along with a few others who may not feel motivated to make it even as far as this fine forum), but here are a few subjective points to offer.
While some facts do need length for the full stories to be adequately told, when talking about persuasion on global warming, I suspect few media outlets are prepared to permit anything more than a sound bite that will feed the next headline.
Hiding behind the veracity of science is comforting as a justification, and its purity over realities of communication a possible consolation, but care must be taken that one only sees one aspect of science as 'the truth', and remains didactic in fighting from only that corner.
These are challenges to be addressed, whist avoiding a few other things.
High on the list, possibly, could be rants?
A long rant about facts, persuasion, and global warming
'If only God the gift had gae us, to see oursel's as others see us'
Robert Burns
Re: A long rant about facts, persuasion, and global warming
I guess it's OK here (though while I am personally interested, I don't feel qualified and hence any more able to stay adequately focused on all this, possibly along with a few others who may not feel motivated to make it even as far as this fine forum), but here are a few subjective points to offer.
While some facts do need length for the full stories to be adequately told, when talking about persuasion on global warming, I suspect few media outlets are prepared to permit anything more than a sound bite that will feed the next headline.
Hiding behind the veracity of science is comforting as a justification, and its purity over realities of communication a possible consolation, but care must be taken that one only sees one aspect of science as 'the truth', and remains didactic in fighting from only that corner.
These are challenges to be addressed, whist avoiding a few other things.
High on the list, possibly, could be rants?
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Sir, Madam. How would you like to be cooked?
When I lived in Singapore there were many phrases in Singlish (the local patois) that could cause delight, but one I always recall were variants on the way you'd prefer your steak. Perhaps my favourite was: 'What done you want?'.
Quite. The degree of 'done', as in being so or simply having had enough and giving up with it is very topical.
I have here announced I no longer intend to blog on 'Global warming' more times than bands announce final concerts, and will doubtless be seduced to the pointless side again when something truly egregious strikes. But I have decided enough is enough. It really is getting me nowhere. And the amount of time I am wasting reading all this guff, writing about it all, and not doing what I do better is not a good investment in helping improve the planet.
To grasp why here are two recent pieces that typify the situation of, it seems to me, wanting to be 100% right rather than getting on and doing an even better % of the right thing.
Bad Science - Credit where it’s due - You gotta graph!
EDITED extra bits:
When I lived ..
I'm afraid I came to this conclusion as this latest set on the topic of 'who's 100% righter' came into my in-box along with one from the BBC - Caution urged on climate 'risks' -
I don't know what my body may be like in a decade, but my brain is already drowning in such 'information' and fried by trying to square the spirals.
...they will eat you instead.
Time for new, less self-interested, and more genuinely motivated and engaging brooms.
BBC - Caution urged on climate 'risks' - And they are not even real... well, they seem to be, but they're not the right kind (ie: our kind) of climate scientist)
Here's a newsflash. If I no longer feel like keeping up, I rather doubt most others can be bothered either. That may mean the 'deniers' (too broad, but will suffice for here) have succeeded.
But it also means that those who would claim to wish, and have the ways, to rectify matters... have failed.
When you rely on Chicken Little for your science, and then rush with his findings to the Boy Who Cried Wolf to handle the PR, and do it too often, then, like Little Red Riding Hood, it doesn't matter what you take to Big Bad Media. If it isn't palatable enough for their audiences, or spoiled by being rushed, they will eat you instead.
Time for new, less self-interested, and more genuinely motivated and engaging brooms.
Observer - Don't exaggerate climate dangers, scientists warn
Quite. The degree of 'done', as in being so or simply having had enough and giving up with it is very topical.
I have here announced I no longer intend to blog on 'Global warming' more times than bands announce final concerts, and will doubtless be seduced to the pointless side again when something truly egregious strikes. But I have decided enough is enough. It really is getting me nowhere. And the amount of time I am wasting reading all this guff, writing about it all, and not doing what I do better is not a good investment in helping improve the planet.
To grasp why here are two recent pieces that typify the situation of, it seems to me, wanting to be 100% right rather than getting on and doing an even better % of the right thing.
Bad Science - Credit where it’s due - You gotta graph!
EDITED extra bits:
When I lived ..
I'm afraid I came to this conclusion as this latest set on the topic of 'who's 100% righter' came into my in-box along with one from the BBC - Caution urged on climate 'risks' -
I don't know what my body may be like in a decade, but my brain is already drowning in such 'information' and fried by trying to square the spirals.
...they will eat you instead.
Time for new, less self-interested, and more genuinely motivated and engaging brooms.
BBC - Caution urged on climate 'risks' - And they are not even real... well, they seem to be, but they're not the right kind (ie: our kind) of climate scientist)
Here's a newsflash. If I no longer feel like keeping up, I rather doubt most others can be bothered either. That may mean the 'deniers' (too broad, but will suffice for here) have succeeded.
But it also means that those who would claim to wish, and have the ways, to rectify matters... have failed.
When you rely on Chicken Little for your science, and then rush with his findings to the Boy Who Cried Wolf to handle the PR, and do it too often, then, like Little Red Riding Hood, it doesn't matter what you take to Big Bad Media. If it isn't palatable enough for their audiences, or spoiled by being rushed, they will eat you instead.
Time for new, less self-interested, and more genuinely motivated and engaging brooms.
Observer - Don't exaggerate climate dangers, scientists warn
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'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)