Are we being served?

A climate of...?

A few points about my article

Biases, U-turns, and the BBC's climate coverage

If you can be bothered to read these, and the comments generated as a consequence, I'd be interested in how you feel afterwards.

Here is my 2d'worth:

Coming in at this juncture one risks feeling rather like some poor non-com who has been ported into the dead centre of a no-person's land. And one between two mighty armies (if comprising about half a dozen, running along the trenches firing away to look extensive) shoveling ordnance into artillery pieces with no real concern as to where the explosion is, so long as it is big enough to raise a cheer from the 'home tribe's' reserves. So I have to say that I have a certain empathy with the image conjured (at least) by this analogy, as one kindly served a few before trying to help with my education in the past....

564. At 09:28am on 20 Oct 2009, rossglory wrote:

errrr, no. what i have noticed is the following exchange over and over again:

denier: can you explain why the sky is green?
alarmist: the latest science shows it's not green but blue.
denier: can you explain why the sky is green?
alarmist: the latest science shows it's not green but blue.
denier: can you explain why the sky is green?
alarmist: i think i'm wasting my time
denier: has anyone noticed alarmists refusing to answer questions?

But, in the spirit of 'balance', I just wonder if it might not be a tad more reflective of the situation(s) (literal and figurative) as follows....

'extreme pessimist': the latest science shows blue skies will turn green unless man stops turning it that way

'extreme optimist' that many 'extreme pessimists' like teasing... and deserve to be: No it's not

'Still neutral': You're right, but I'm unsure how much man really is involved to the level demanded and need to be convinced more before committing the whole farm to serve 'solving' things in the rather selective ways advocated by some.

'Some pessimists' (to any not conforming) : the latest science shows blue skies will turn green unless man stops turning it that way, and by even having doubts you are not with us, and thus need to be shut up or dealt with.

...etc...

Anyone noticed some folk (if from all various 'corners') see things only their way and will not even grant the possibility that there is another view that at the very least deserves to be explored and/or heard?

'If only God the gift hae gae us, to see ourselves as others see us'

Let the bombardments recommence (with, I suspect, the odd frag grenade arriving in my shell hole from various trenches)!

My reply was mainly prompted by this post rather twisting the argument to suit from the off. There was a status quo which has been challenged for change by some who have taken a very absolutist view. Many, myself included, are not comfortable with this, or the methods chosen thus far. Especially to find myself targeted as a 'denier', which makes me feel 'resistant' to this grouping holding sway. I hope my innocent suggestion will be appreciated for laying that conceit bare.

I also stand ready to be accused of being in the pay of someone or other, or at least in league. Which is kinda funny as the ones throwing such accusations around seem to be mostly from the crew cheerfully suggesting they all meet back in the forum they have created to deal with 'wrong thinking folk'.

Entering the Lion's Den

As I think this may be important, I have entered a PMWNCC debate..

Sober exit from the ozone party

Just when I was getting worried about climate change we now learn that the climate may even fail.

So they are no more qualified to comment on climate than Kevin from Rotherham.

Careful, there may be a pre-eminent Professor of climate stuff out there, first name Kevin, who is from Rotherham. Then by the law of association and 'wot u sed', that means others will then become 'qualified'.

Honestly, I am unsure what 'qualifications' one needs to be 'qualified' to comment on climate change, especially with the anthro kicker that is sometimes added.

I wish there was, because a lot of servers worldwide might get less heated (along with what they shuffle through), if things were/could be a bit more definitive. But, sadly, as we are dealing with the future, short of hiring Dr. Who to the Met Office, things seem unlikely to be ever much improved on the guarantee front, prediction wise. And so much, like flying a B2, seems to be in the realms of super-computers that can defy the more linear logic of the human brain, even a trained science or engineering one. Which can prove an issue of trust, relying on what some (possibly) fallible folk have put in a whizzy box to chew on, and it, GIGOesquely, pops out for those same folk to 'interpret'. Often, it seems, depending on what they want to see.

Which brings me to your other point, which I have indeed seen raised elsewhere.

At risk of being labelled an 'ist' of some tribal extreme, when I merely admit to not knowing for sure yet, but am still keen to find out more, may I pose what I hope (perhaps in vain) a question that more informed... perhaps better 'qualified' minds can explain. Links can help, but just saying 'this chap reckons it's so and she's got a few letters after her name so it must be' is not often the best deal sealer, these days, at least for me.

Anyway....

Key to many 'measures' being discussed, is that 'man' is still doing his darndest to heat the place up and up, and that is the only issue. Hence it seems a bit odd to concede (is it? Or is that just some, and their findings are being pounced upon out of context?... though as Mr. Mandelson has shown of late, that spin is a dodgy one to try for painting black as white)* that all these efforts are being outweighed by another, cooling effect, albeit deemed a 'pause'.

As our race is not, yet, mitigating our efforts in any meaningful way, what then is powerful enough to go from complementing to now reversing our damaging efforts, and how can some be so precise in identifying when that effect will flip again?

For the absence of doubt, I am just asking. Shrieking denier without explanation might not help me understand, though I do concede that this direction might not help the anthro-pessimistic advocacy argument. Unless there is a good reason, which I am more than happy to have explained.

There are some fine minds out there, if from different... um, directions... so I hope what I think is a fair, if possibly naive question (if so, please say so, but just saying 'it's too complicated for you to understand' is Jana Bennett territory) might be contributed to in an informative and persuasive manner.

It will be interesting to see how what I hope is a measured contribution gets handled but what I fear, from experience, two tribes only interested in going to war over words.

In which case I will go back to just not wasting, seeking better efficiencies, and checking the enviROI before leaping to any 'green has to be good' conclusions.

*Addendum - BBC Today - Global temperatures 'could cool'

Just love the journalistic, ratings-hungry conceit of lobbing a 'could', extreme headline up front (or simply say 'is' out loud), with a more cautious 'so says' qualifier in the tail. Helpful?

By way of a possible answer to my question, there was a mention/discussion (if between two folk of possibly less science-based heft than the leading climate modeler quoted) to 'cyclical changes in the Atlantic', which was more tantalising than overwhelming.

What was less than inspiring was the other 70% of the exchange, which seemed more concerned about how it 'might look' from such as Jon 'I just interpret events' Humphrys, ending with a word from his oppo that I usually crank an eyebrow at: narrative. As in 'enhancing' it?

Yes, truths can be inconvenient, but as another noted BBC global warming (are we headed back to this? I gather man-made is off the menu, but from hearing these two chaps chat even climate change is optional) reporter found a while ago, being too willing to allow them to emerge without much journalistic rigour can erode trust in ability and objectivity.

Addendum - I have been... am enjoying the discussion, but wonder where it is going (especially as I see the whole 'tis/'t'isn't big picture and hence personal stuff creeping in, which means it may be time for me to retire gracefully and leave it to those who see profit in such exchanges).

Yes, I pen.. key... 'lots', but I fear I do not have the time to write shorter pieces.

Especially as, ironically, in many ways, it looks as if things are coming full circle. As we now seem at a point where it has swung to matters of degree of the MM in MMGW (I have always favoured the less snappy, though in the circumstances possibly more helpful term: 'Probably man-worsened negative climate change').

Because now we need to glance at other, tricky waters, namely who said (claimed) what, and when. And especially with what deadlines. It may well be that we are in a phase of geo-climatic trending, where graphs can indeed peak and trough over decades. However, the contribution of man is what is being talked about (with a lot riding on it), and data cited in support of this, and that seems hard to marry with many claims made to date, and requiring faith to ignore when they prove exaggerated. Especially when we have an awful lot being pinned on some goalposts that are already moving, yet some who see themselves at the vanguard still cannot resist deadlines that may again disappoint, in matters of months (albeit 100, or 8 years). This, in light of the topic of discussion, seems foolhardy.

And this again leads me to wonder about the abilities and competencies of the messengers who think they are doing a bang up job in bringing the message in a comprehensive and persuasive form to the people. And I am not sure having hissy fits, stamping feet and muttering darkly about 'impositions' as some 'know better' is quite going to cut it, at least in free press democracies, and may well end in tears.

Not looking great, as it is fairly clear these 'chosen ones' are not about to step down, much less shut up (or at least get sensible). Too much ego, and money at stake. Ironically, something that has been and is lobbed around at those (foolishly in my view) addicted to the finite, last legs resource that is oil. And speaking of goalposts, it seems to me that the more extreme advocates from that end of the 'climate change' debate are being handed open ones too often by those who in theory are seeking to promote convincing solutions to real problems, but are spending a tad too much on ensuring their way is followed no matter what.

So no, I am not convinced, yet, that global warming is man made. Totally. Or even to the level that seems to get you labelled a 'denier', albeit illogically and without foundation, for not being fully with 'the team'. Or that, in the absence of dealing with bigger ticket items (such as deforestation or population), beyond sensible preventions of waste and improvements in efficiency, we might not be better advised to direct our efforts more to coping as opposed to totally trying to avoid, as all eggs in that basket is currently a leap of faith I find hard to justify on the 'evidence' so far.

I have called it 'Survival of the Selfish', and it seems to be being practiced a fair bit already. Even closer to home, especially by those in the steering house of our analogous ship, who seem to feel their use of the helicopter to whizz about (I am sure it is hard to resist an invitation to stand on an ice floe if you are a pol or a reporter, but when you are on TV, how it looks goes beyond the screen) is OK, unaware that those in the decks below can't quite see the distinction between the impositions of and on their jobs and lifestyles, and those of the ones usually funding them but told to stay put and deal with less.

I may well be wrong. But as an old client once, crushingly, advised me during a presentation: 'No, I have not failed to understand. The problem is that you have so far failed to persuade me'.

Thank heavens for our relationship, and the future of that account, we were both big enough to understand and hence work further on all that was inherent in that 'so far'.

Addendum - This is an interesting, ongoing series, so i won't put my added comments in to waste space. Best part is, with a few minor exceptions, it is being conducted in a civilised manner. So far. I do however have my suspicions that some contributing might not be as free of agenda, or indeed informed experience, as they might claim or their nicknames suggest.

FT - Emissions fall in 2008: and not entirely because of the recession

Guardian - Will the UN climate change summit lead to a deal? - A good comment early on about population and deforestation needing to be in and/or higher. Plus the value of certain polls.

I love civilised debate

And, sometimes, you can be a small part of something rare.

Leaders in step on climate

Yes, it's on the BBC. Even more unique, it's about climate change (though I did note a 'quirk'*). And yet, I took part. To date, it has been worth it.

3. At 7:52pm on 14 Sep 2009:

I am usually hugely underwhelmed by the published results of any poll, from any quarter, especially when a media who depend and thrive on attention and ratings sink their teeth into them.

However, based purely on how reported here, a few things occur...

The British public has become more sceptical about climate change over the last five years, according to a survey.

Twice as many people now agree that "claims that human activities are changing the climate are exaggerated".

Not, exactly, a glowing endorsement of the abilities or trust held in most high-profile politico-media messengers, irrespective of the validity of their message. And, speaking as the parent of teens, not the best basis to go on to effect further change (correction?) in behaviour, be it perceived as 'wrong' or just 'apathy'. But I am guessing, from 'But it does show, I think, that the publics' and their leaders' perceptions of climate change, in the UK and elsewhere, are not significantly out of step." that a change of tack is unlikely any time soon, so carry on. It's worked/working gangbusters so far.

'What we have to get across is that residual uncertainty in science is normal'. And such as this Mondeo Man-engaging phrase is just what's needed to do it.

But, 'A third said there was too much conflicting evidence to know what is actually happening,' which suggests to me that there is still hope, as there are some as smart as they are honest.

Which is why both these sentences are a bit of a worry: "We need to make it clear to people what is due to climate change and what is not. "It is time we made it real to people." This would be 'clarity' according to whom? Made real by whom, and how? Bearing in mind 'Twice as many people now agree that "claims that human activities are changing the climate are exaggerated'. Rather requires a sea change in thinking on the persuasion front from now on, which seems unlikely if the same folk are still dishing it out. And the same public are seeing the next effort coming from those they didn't buy it from before. Trust is tricky to regain.

On current form, I rather worry that 'there is still some way to go before the public's perception matches that of their elected leaders' comes across as less of an observation and more of a challenge to overcome, and not necessarily in a good way, bearing in mind the public's faith in the competence or honesty of those at the helm to date. Especially when a few other 'for your own good' efforts of late have gone down like the proverbial lead balloon, undoing decades of hard fought, sincere and positive efforts.

36. At 09:34am on 15 Sep 2009:

Some great input here. Especially on matters of communication and perception (which I believe can be changed and worth discussing) beyond the 'science' (which seems to have been bogged down between two dogmatic extremes, often charmingly encapsulated by the words 'deniers' and 'warmists', and pretty much dead in the water as regards rational debate). Just a pity one depends on the other to a significant degree (or two).

25. At 01:47am on 15 Sep 2009, Sceptic_Kev wrote:
If you cry wolf and work hard to kill the wolf, then people still assume your a liar.

I am struggling to recall Y2K, but one thing I do is that on that night I was not in a bunker with my tin foil hat on, so somewhere along the line I either ceased to be bothered or chilled out. And a possibly significant aspect is that I do not recall much, or at least the same level of 'official' headless chicken running then. This seemed mainly a media construct and, as pointed out, perhaps inspired or at least accelerated the public's faith failing with 24/7, over-staffed, under-qualified, excessively narrative enhanced, any-pundit-in-a-storm events interpretation.

Suddenly it wasn't just a few banking systems that were going to fail, it was the end of the world.

And when the likes of me realised that reporters seemed to be flying hither and thither to report on 'the end of the world' from nicer venues untroubled that their planes' clocks might be a bit fast, we tended to err more on the side of those who cautioned it was just a few banking systems. QED.

Not a scientific parallel at all here, in fact dangerously so (potentially), but in terms of our faith in media-driven warning systems based on science....

26. At 02:03am on 15 Sep 2009, mhfisher

Another great, telling post. The media love pigeon holes. And adversarial stances. So you are either old, smart and cynical or young, inexperienced and idealistic. Er... how about 'none of the above?', which I rather suspect the average of the silent majority are.

And it also is pretty critical how the questions are put. From surveys to the way they get reported, the *anthropomorphic qualifier pops in and out like a Labour senior minister (it will be the same for Conservative ones if they gain power) from the bunker depending on whether they need to explain a howler or be photographed beside David Beckham.

It may be shorthand, and may be implicit to some, and even be properly applied in the professional research, but that word does not appear, for instance, in the first para of this blog post. I know the climate is changing, and it seems not in a good way. I also think ever more humans are not helping anything much by releasing ever more consequences of their daily business. Just... not so sure yet about the the link, and scale of influence being claimed, and used as excuses for pretty scary stuff by some. Especially those who see cutting back as what others do and some need not (oddly, one set being those they think they 'rule', and another those who treat them with distain but might still fund the odd pension if sucked up to correctly).

I feel like the media coverage needs to change but continue. In what capacity I am not sure. It’s unfortunate that the media has the power to take something serious and turn people off from it.

Bingo, if for different reasons and possibly from different ends of the quaint demographic divide (if by age at least) suggested.

But one last thing to bear in mind. Just because I am proving a harder sell does not mean I don't care, or want to understand. Don't know how many of our passionate youth are parents, but when you are middle aged with kids, with almost none of the suggested consequences in one's lifetime to worry about, the suggestions of some that the likes of me don't have the best interests of my children at heart is at best scientifically silly, and at worst foolishly insulting. That is, if reaching consensus for sensible, practical, action on the part of the total population is really what those more vocal in their 'concerns' really want.

Keetsa - TRUSTING THE GREEN BLOGS TODAY

..it's a wonderful town! The battery's flat and the generator's down

Again, I get interested in a bit of science reporting.

Losing sustainability in the urban canyons

I was simply intrigued by the back of envelope calculations, but my enquiry did provoke an interesting response, which at least allowed me the opportunity to expand and clarify (plus indulge in a little blogger teasing:)....

Just looking at the nice picture at the top, I merely wonder what the consequences might be as the sun moves and certain areas end up in the shade of various tall structures around and abounding. At least in the original piece there was a caveat on the wind contribution, though again I have to wonder to what extent there may be problems from the wind patterns around such urban canyons. I am sure if Mr. Cameron had a penthouse overlooking Central Park we may have some better idea. So no matter what people can and then decide to do, even en masse, I'd still be keen to know what the realistic generation capacities might be, bearing in mind the ambient climatic and architectural conditions, from someone who might know. I am still hoping in matters of renewable energy deliverables, historical data and professional experience and calculations can get pretty close to a reasonable estimate. Perhaps a tad closer than the current rough calculations? This indeed may be of value to the journalists from Bulgaria, India, Kenya and Peru, and the numerous interest groups represented at the meeting, who I am sure have flown in from far and wide to appreciate all the facts about what causes climate change... and possible high enviROI mitigations, of course. Though some terribly reasonable optimistic level lampooners may still prefer to stick a finger up in the air. To measure, of course.

After this, it kind of fell apart on the moderation, which seems to be almost inevitable.

So my questions on the science get buried under stupid finger pointing. Again. Nice one, Aunty.

Move over Canute?

Obama to regulate 'pollutant' CO2

While there is much to ponder and possibly even commend behind some of the rhetoric (followed by sensible enviROI+ actions, one trusts) that 'inspired' this headline, I have to say the words themselves really seem as daft in combination as almost any I have seen from the political classes, and the often way too compliant media that serve them.

I had thought Richard Black one of the less narrative enhancing of the national broadcast news performing monkey troupe, but this one puts him right back down in the 'barely worth paying heed to' class with such as Susan Watts on both scientific comprehension and reporting objectivity.

A matter of degree

I love blogging... evidently.

It can be, and mostly is, a great experience, and usually a learning one.

However, just as Peter Parker found, with great power comes great responsibility.

And, often, sadly, challenges.

One is moderation, which is a very difficult line to walk. One which, if you are not careful, can lead to censorship, which is the gateway to objectivity going out the window, and bias and control coming in.

G20, Bonn and the climate of opinion

Not from the author, but I do find such suggestions creeping in these days, and feel the need to at the very least challenge the thinking. I worry about those who think they 'know' 'right' more than others can hold more sway than they deserve, simply by being vocal:

(I don't know if the technology allows it, but it would be good to impose a limit on the length and number of posts)

It exists, and has since time immemorial. The problem tends to come with the humans behind it who set and police the 'rules', and where their skill sets, influences and/or sympathies lie. So I am unsure how 'good' that would be.

While I agree that the blogosphere can get prone to 'distractions', trying to explain or debate science via Twitter-feeds is indeed a worthy discipline to encourage, and may be great for those seeking sound-bites, but may lead to incomplete and hence inaccurate posts. I think most blogs do have a limit anyway, and seem to work as a consequence.

As to number of posts, what if I agree? And suggest this should be the last on this issue? Shame you might not get to have any further opinion on that, at least in the same thread:) I also find that when the mods call a halt often leads to suspicions that an over-arching agenda is at play, and when things are not going in a favoured direction impositions can get applied. Not great for free and open debate.

I agree it can be frustrating, but on balance simply skipping over those that seem to be going in a poor direction still works best for me.

THE TWO E"s - On your wagon

Turning on to Nano-man

'Regularly these days we hear appeals from politicians... It's urgent, they say, and - this is the key message - it can be done, if everyone and every country does his/her/its bit.'

A very key comment. And one I find hard to rationalise with what issues forth from many politicians, and the media that carry their press releases.

The only appeals I have heard of late are to support the car industry, and often ones that would be hard-pressed to be called 'green'. In crowded urban centres as described above, I agree mass transit initiatives would seem a much 'better' commitment.

But here the latest wheeze I heard of was paying the likes of me £2k to ditch my old car and buy a new Jag (who makes those?). Or maybe an LDV van? Sadly (financially, if not environmentally, from manufacturing impact to running) , I opted for a second hand LPG.

I'd just love to square the whole reduced eco-impact vs. growing economy thing, but just can't. I don't think it can be, at least in the ways being currently attempted, and with such blatant fudging if not dishonesty from the establishment.

Guardian - India launches 'world's cheapest car' - Enjoy the other threads and comments. George Monbiot's is 'lively'. I liked one of his supporters' claims against a few eyebrow-crankers that he has a car 'because he needs one'. Ahhhh... that's where I have been going wrong with my finger-wa... oh... I don't do that.

Ask a silly question...

Why does the BBC treat us like morons over climate change?

'They' certainly are not doing themselves... or the cause of sensible science and/or reporting (of most topics, but especially contentious ones) many favours these days. Both with what they decide to include and... as important... leave out.

I am currently a climate neutral for now, erring on pessimism with a hint of 'man surely can't be helping much' to shape my interests. Hence I am in the process of finding out.

What doesn't help... me, my quest, or, IMHO, the cause being so avidly espoused by many with the best of intentions I'm sure, is having any contrary views either ignored, drowned (sorry) out or patronised.

The latest piece in this blog for example, and the comments in reply, left me high and dry (sorry again) and very confused. However, it did seem unusual that one set of information and hence views was reported upon, yet another was not. I'd have preferred both to be factually and objectively referred to and then let the hounds of the blogosphere run wild with link, fisk and opinion to taste. By erring in one direction, my attempts at understanding were inevitably shaped by the strenuous reactions. I can see how maintaining balance can be tricky, and serving up every contrary view an exercise in frustration and futility, but even on a factual basis alone (Newsnight's Susan Watt's 'edit' of Pres. Obama's speech for example) there is a growing form book. And I find it is having a highly diversionary and hence unfortunate effect. Because it hands open goals to blogs such as this. As do measurements of what 'will' happen, in hundreds of months or tens of meters. If what 'might'... 'doesn't', then there is a bit of fancy tap-dancing going to be required, and make genuine efforts all the harder.

So, most crucially (on top of a few other examples of 'narrative enhancing') my eyebrow is now by default very much cranked at anything in this area that Aunty originates.

Not optimal for the national broadcaster I have relied upon for decades, and am required to pay for.

I wish 'they' wouldn't do it.

Addendum - I was replied to, and so have responded, hopefully in a manner to make all 'sides' think more and pontificate less:

Thank you for some considered and supportive comments. It is refreshing not to get howled out for admitting to still be on a journey, but to be fair I pretty sure some who similarly confess to feeling the causes of climate change may lie at ma... personkind's door, and accept the many remedies proposed, would suffer a similar fate in less supportive arenas.

I have a little saying, which I probably nicked, that is 'not all that is green can be viewed in black or white', and I try and allow this to be my guide, with a willingness to listen to any argument so long as it is well presented... in a civilised way. If I see 'treehugger' I switch off just as much as I would with 'denier'.

For instance, I have to say that what Jonathan writes above was well put and does make good sense, but without having seen the piece in question it's hard to get a good handle on the context.

Hence, if it was about dealing with the consequences of climate change, man-made, worsened or otherwise, I may owe the reporter some apology. Because, of course, Jonathan, and by extension the piece, is quite right: to afford the same level of protection the barrier will need raising by that amount if the sea level rises by that amount. If that is all that the reporter was demonstrating, I also cannot argue. This not quite the same as using hard shoulders for rush hour overloads. Though both are coping strategies, at best.

In this regard I would commend the newer blog post (and, I am sure, any comments it generates) a few further on, reporting about the Copenhagen conference, where the issue of ''tis/t'isnt' absolutes is discussed in the face of trying to understand the future and prepare for it sensibly with what we have available. I sometimes have trouble with political rhetoric that seems better able to balance environmental checks with growing economies and populations, and media who can seamlessly go from finger-wagging reporting of much of the sacrifices required by us all, to gushing irony-free over a celeb who has just landed in their private jet having done something, somewhere 'to raise awareness'.

I guess this story struck a chord because I do get frustrated with absolutes, and especially being told what I believe, or at least what I should, by folk whose qualifications and indeed agendas I have come to doubt are quite up to the importance of the task.

Only the other week I attended a local climate change seminar (run by an energy agency funded by the council, funded by DEFRA, funded by the DTI, funded by HMG, funded by the EU), where the whole thing went downhill pretty fast.

I must confess to have been one of the causes. I had gone to get some tips and info on things I could do to save energy and money. What I got was a bunch of cards which I had to express my feelings about. The very first said 'London will be under 100m of water by 2050'. I merely opined that I wasn't sure if it might or might not, and that anyway seemed an awfully high figure that was being taken as read. As I say, all downhill from there as various protagonists hurtled to their two extremes and we ended up with a stalemate.

My point being that if the guys running this had not been quite so keen to make a point they obviously were already convinced about, by pushing the extremes, there might have been a much more fruitful and productive session for all. And, to take JohnT's point, if this is what is being done with possibly more cynical adults, I do concern myself with how my sons are being educated, in a balanced way, on the issues. Re-everything for sure, and totally do not waste, but do also get to grips with the consequences of reductions, and how that impacts on iPods & holiday trips.

Too often I fear such as the BBC leap on anything on this globe that is a bit odd, or different, weatherwise, and then infer a rather huge series of leaps from climate change to manmade cc, to pots of money 'preventing' it, first going on some talking a lot in sunny venues, and then throwing what's left at anything remotely 'green', and that's that.

Which, as this blog rather suggests, bogs more subtle discussions down when a few stick their hands up with doubts, and has the surely less than salutary result of putting average folk like me either off thinking about it, or possibly worse paying greater heed to those that say there is nothing to worry about. Especially if painted doomsday scenarios do not come to pass. This Chicken Little has not been proven wrong... yet. So caution does still seem prudent. But if a deadline passes, human nature will tend to interpret those who set that deadline as flawed goods, and be more resistant to 'revisions'.

I fear I do have concerns, and hence see and accept some changes to our lifestyles, but so far I am not best impressed with many from the politico-media establishment's efforts in helping me understand the issues enough to figure out what's best for me to support... for my kids' sake. For them, short to long term, I do have to weigh pocket and planet, the realities of which many commentators (especially those index-link pensioned ones) seem immune to. In this, I do not feel we are well served so far by the messengers who have taken it upon themselves to share the message, which patently is having trouble getting across, much less sticking, outside of some rather well-insulated (now there's a DOING initiative really worth throwing money at, rather than TV ads and magazine spreads about assessing my footprint. Stick more wool in my Mum's loft!) quarters.

Who's in charge of the who should be in charge brigade?

Here's an interesting post: Bypassing the blockage of nations

As much for what is written as the answers it has already acquired.

As one who has long maintained that who we have in charge don't seem to be 'fit for purpose', the notion of of a change seems attractive. However this seems to err more on hiring yet more.... as well as. Not a course I'd honestly favour.

Nice that such issues are being pondered, mind.