A climate of...?
A few points about my article
Biases, U-turns, and the BBC's climate coverage
If you can be bothered to read these, and the comments generated as a consequence, I'd be interested in how you feel afterwards.
Here is my 2d'worth:
Coming in at this juncture one risks feeling rather like some poor non-com who has been ported into the dead centre of a no-person's land. And one between two mighty armies (if comprising about half a dozen, running along the trenches firing away to look extensive) shoveling ordnance into artillery pieces with no real concern as to where the explosion is, so long as it is big enough to raise a cheer from the 'home tribe's' reserves. So I have to say that I have a certain empathy with the image conjured (at least) by this analogy, as one kindly served a few before trying to help with my education in the past....
564. At 09:28am on 20 Oct 2009, rossglory wrote:
errrr, no. what i have noticed is the following exchange over and over again:
denier: can you explain why the sky is green?
alarmist: the latest science shows it's not green but blue.
denier: can you explain why the sky is green?
alarmist: the latest science shows it's not green but blue.
denier: can you explain why the sky is green?
alarmist: i think i'm wasting my time
denier: has anyone noticed alarmists refusing to answer questions?
But, in the spirit of 'balance', I just wonder if it might not be a tad more reflective of the situation(s) (literal and figurative) as follows....
'extreme pessimist': the latest science shows blue skies will turn green unless man stops turning it that way
'extreme optimist' that many 'extreme pessimists' like teasing... and deserve to be: No it's not
'Still neutral': You're right, but I'm unsure how much man really is involved to the level demanded and need to be convinced more before committing the whole farm to serve 'solving' things in the rather selective ways advocated by some.
'Some pessimists' (to any not conforming) : the latest science shows blue skies will turn green unless man stops turning it that way, and by even having doubts you are not with us, and thus need to be shut up or dealt with.
...etc...
Anyone noticed some folk (if from all various 'corners') see things only their way and will not even grant the possibility that there is another view that at the very least deserves to be explored and/or heard?
'If only God the gift hae gae us, to see ourselves as others see us'
Let the bombardments recommence (with, I suspect, the odd frag grenade arriving in my shell hole from various trenches)!
My reply was mainly prompted by this post rather twisting the argument to suit from the off. There was a status quo which has been challenged for change by some who have taken a very absolutist view. Many, myself included, are not comfortable with this, or the methods chosen thus far. Especially to find myself targeted as a 'denier', which makes me feel 'resistant' to this grouping holding sway. I hope my innocent suggestion will be appreciated for laying that conceit bare.
I also stand ready to be accused of being in the pay of someone or other, or at least in league. Which is kinda funny as the ones throwing such accusations around seem to be mostly from the crew cheerfully suggesting they all meet back in the forum they have created to deal with 'wrong thinking folk'.
Showing posts with label SCIENTIFIC DEBATE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SCIENTIFIC DEBATE. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Facts and links, makes me thinks, but slurs seldom sway me
I like to think of myself as a sifter.
There is no way I'd claim to be totally on the fence, every time, on every issue, but I do try and see all sides, and then be open to evolve my views as new facts, and circumstances, and arguments come to light.
Hence I cast far and wide for information and, often, opinion. But I do err on proven fact more.
So one area I tend to lurk rather than pitch in on is the absolutism of 'climate change', especially in the anthropomorphic form, as here really it has been settled. Unfortunately, it's by two extreme sets of views so far apart they can't (or won't) even acknowledge each other, yet who seem to think shouting at the top of their voices in their own crowd little padded cells will somehow make a difference.
However, when facts that are verifiable and do seem pertinent get bandied about, I do take notice.
As I did this, but knowing some background, I passed.
A triumph for man, a disaster for mankind
However it has returned via a few blogs.
And if there is one thing that pushes all the wrong buttons, especially in debate, is resorting to ad homs and, especially the term 'you people'; two words which have single-handedly managed to really tax my ability not to side with whoever is not this person, irrespective of the content of their arguments rather than their tone.
Deniers Ahoy!
An article that mentions climate change is published: the deniers slither out from under their rocks to deny reality.
Really, you people should start ordaining ministers. You already have a religion.
Anything that uses the immortal words 'you people' rather damns itself already, especially when also a tad shy on anything substantive as well. Hence the attempted invocation of religion as a pejorative being a tad ironic.
What I see is a piece of in theory objective, balanced and well-researched professional reporting being challenged and, it seems with a fair amount of well-sourced contrary data and argued opinion.
So far, by way of counter, we have only one reasoned (and appreciated) supportive contribution... and a lot of heat at the expense of light.
Which is not a great way to convince those who don't happen to think they fall under the term 'you people' but have an active interest in this topic.
An apt metaphor for much of my message vs. messenger thinking of late.
But not a good one, sadly.
There is no way I'd claim to be totally on the fence, every time, on every issue, but I do try and see all sides, and then be open to evolve my views as new facts, and circumstances, and arguments come to light.
Hence I cast far and wide for information and, often, opinion. But I do err on proven fact more.
So one area I tend to lurk rather than pitch in on is the absolutism of 'climate change', especially in the anthropomorphic form, as here really it has been settled. Unfortunately, it's by two extreme sets of views so far apart they can't (or won't) even acknowledge each other, yet who seem to think shouting at the top of their voices in their own crowd little padded cells will somehow make a difference.
However, when facts that are verifiable and do seem pertinent get bandied about, I do take notice.
As I did this, but knowing some background, I passed.
A triumph for man, a disaster for mankind
However it has returned via a few blogs.
And if there is one thing that pushes all the wrong buttons, especially in debate, is resorting to ad homs and, especially the term 'you people'; two words which have single-handedly managed to really tax my ability not to side with whoever is not this person, irrespective of the content of their arguments rather than their tone.
Deniers Ahoy!
An article that mentions climate change is published: the deniers slither out from under their rocks to deny reality.
Really, you people should start ordaining ministers. You already have a religion.
Anything that uses the immortal words 'you people' rather damns itself already, especially when also a tad shy on anything substantive as well. Hence the attempted invocation of religion as a pejorative being a tad ironic.
What I see is a piece of in theory objective, balanced and well-researched professional reporting being challenged and, it seems with a fair amount of well-sourced contrary data and argued opinion.
So far, by way of counter, we have only one reasoned (and appreciated) supportive contribution... and a lot of heat at the expense of light.
Which is not a great way to convince those who don't happen to think they fall under the term 'you people' but have an active interest in this topic.
An apt metaphor for much of my message vs. messenger thinking of late.
But not a good one, sadly.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
CATEGORY - GM
New topic.
This first post covers many other, related, issues...
Articles
BBC - Is the green movement part of the problem?
This first post covers many other, related, issues...
Articles
BBC - Is the green movement part of the problem?
Friday, March 13, 2009
Poles apart
That seems appropriate.
As the two 'sides' I am referring to seem to be mostly at each one, either proving or disproving glacier melts or ice thicknesses as the rest of us sit in the middle and either freeze, fry or drown as they dick about arguing.
Speaking of which, something has just sunk in, which I will pose as a question (as I don't know...yet).
It cannot have escaped the notice of anyone interested (and selected groups possibly not, demanding on their choice of media) that there have been two major climate conferences recently: one in Copenhagen (the bigger, and more reported.. in places), and one in New York (the less big, and hence (?) much less well reported). I think it is safe to say each were essentially pushing diverse views within the climate change debate, if billed in the name of 'discussing' problems and solutions.
Thing is, what the heck was going on if the most vocal and, one presumes qualified 'experts' in the field doing in two separate places, essentially agreeing with those who agree with them? Was this through choice, lack of invitation, rejection, selection... what?
Doesn't all this really rather defeat the object of scientific debate? Not to mention the cause of a better future for our kids.
As the two 'sides' I am referring to seem to be mostly at each one, either proving or disproving glacier melts or ice thicknesses as the rest of us sit in the middle and either freeze, fry or drown as they dick about arguing.
Speaking of which, something has just sunk in, which I will pose as a question (as I don't know...yet).
It cannot have escaped the notice of anyone interested (and selected groups possibly not, demanding on their choice of media) that there have been two major climate conferences recently: one in Copenhagen (the bigger, and more reported.. in places), and one in New York (the less big, and hence (?) much less well reported). I think it is safe to say each were essentially pushing diverse views within the climate change debate, if billed in the name of 'discussing' problems and solutions.
Thing is, what the heck was going on if the most vocal and, one presumes qualified 'experts' in the field doing in two separate places, essentially agreeing with those who agree with them? Was this through choice, lack of invitation, rejection, selection... what?
Doesn't all this really rather defeat the object of scientific debate? Not to mention the cause of a better future for our kids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)