BBC Blog Network

User Profile

JunkkMale

Listed below are comments made by JunkkMale between Sunday, 22nd November 2009 and Monday, 23rd November 2009 (7 Hours Ago) .

«Newer
Older»

Monday 23 November 2009 7:12pm on 23 Nov 2009 She'll be asking if we can trust the scientists.

The scientists, yes.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/nytimes_we_wont_publish_statem.asp

I am sure that, here in the UK, we have better standards. If perhaps at least two. Which can often mean one too many.

Remember, from now on the watchword is watertight oversight, which I presume includes stuff like balance, objectivity & consistency, right?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/

Update 2309: Because comments were posted quoting excerpts apparently from the hacked Climate Research Unit e-mails, and because there are potential legal issues connected with publishing this material, we have temporarily removed all comments until we can ensure that watertight oversight is in place.

Update 2 - 0930 GMT Monday 23 November: We have now re-opened comments on this post. However, legal considerations mean that we will not publish comments quoting from e-mails purporting to be those stolen from the University of East Anglia, nor comments linking to other sites quoting from that material.

A high standard has been set. It will be interesting to see if, or when that might change, thanks to the unique ways events can find themselves interpreted when the mood takes.
Copenhagen Countdown: 17 days 5:55pm on 23 Nov 2009 How's the old (well, brand new) pan-BBC 'watertight oversight' on facts vs. opinion thing going?

Plus blogs going up, coming down and being overhauled hourly like a yo-yo.

Seems like the climate is not the only one in a state of flux.

But it's good to see some balanced objectivity shining through.

http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/on-air-are-climate-chnage-deniers-the-greatest-threat-to-our-planet/

http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/are-you-selfish-or-are-we-bad-journalists/ (be uick, this 'un 'moves' a fair bit, I think daily, to keep us on our toes)

But I do fear from now on I might need to crank an eyebrow even more when I hear that 'the science is settled', especially when based on reviews by peers who seem to review each other quite a lot to ensure... consistency.

Not surprised various Milibands and Browns and various (how many from just one country's national broadcaster...35?) 'reporting' and events-interpreting elites are viewing the climate in Copenhagen as more clement and itching to be on the first plane out of here. Again.
Friday 20 November 2009 5:27pm on 23 Nov 2009 105. At 07:52am on 23 Nov 2009,

Just back from a day 'off', but still dodging floods.

Remember I mentioned this?:

http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/are-you-selfish-or-are-we-bad-journalists/

Well in my browser it seems to have migrated. Or... something... (not my fault, as I am sure Barry's blogdog would not have allowed me to post a broken link, surely?)

Error 404 - Not Found
Oh no! You're looking for something which just isn't here! Fear not however, errors are to be expected [oh, the... further... irony]

And the lengthy, barely digestible (sorry, but ta to those nice enough to reply for persevering) comment I tried to make over the weekend seems not to have made the 'cut' in it's new, slightly different incarnation either:

http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/are-you-selfish-or-are-we-bad-journalists/

Which has now been joined by this fine, well-balanced fellow:

http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/on-air-are-climate-chnage-deniers-the-greatest-threat-to-our-planet/

Nowt like setting out your stall up front and personal, very personal, starting in the headline.

Just what might a 'climate change denier' actually be? The term makes zero sense. Who denies the climate changes? It just seems to be a pet term for some to try to lob about to pigeon hole those who have a few questions on the 'solely man made orthodoxy' currently under some scrutiny, which I rather thought a national broadcaster committed to 'watertight oversight' might feel is rather pejorative to use in balanced, objective reporting and moderated debate.

So we seem to be still in a state of flux*. And, not just climatically but also its reporting (or not), especially in some places which frankly should know better... well and truly better... that's heading well and truly to being more than a little *ed up in its handling of this.
Friday 20 November 2009 08:12am on 23 Nov 2009 92. At 2:40pm on 22 Nov 2009, Roger Thomas wrote:
Unfortunately very little of what is being told to the public in the media is true.

I'll try and be more forgiving and suggest that 'true' be amended to 'accurate' (some revelations self-evidently excepted), as I am sure most are sincere, from pols to media folk, but have got so caught up in the spinning game they have forgotten how to take deep breaths, sit back, ponder a while, and sift facts from the cacophony of 'noise' that comes their way, and resist peer pressure attempts to sway matters in ways that coincide with personal, and often personal political beliefs.

Hence the floods in Cumbria are no more necessarily 'proof' of (A)GW than fly in the air. Yet every report and talking head from gov, quango or expert activist group seems to be trying to allude it is down to 'climate change'. Projecting that on taxing flights whilst extending car scrappage, or ignoring shipping industry pollution as it doesn't suit... does not compute.

But, equally, to claim there need be no concern on highest rainfall rates in recorded history is equally facile. What happens when that water hits the ground being another story. One it will be interesting to see how it gets played out.

It is to be hoped that we may yet get to an era of political and media professional honesty, hopefully complemented by competence.

Who knows, once that happens the public may start trusting again and work with genuine efforts that truly are 'for the best'.
Friday 20 November 2009 07:52am on 23 Nov 2009 93. At 3:01pm on 22 Nov 2009, brossen99 wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac&feature=player_embedded#

I have been staying abreast of this as it has 'unfurled', if in a somewhat odd manner. That the BBC's environmental reporting system seems to have gone into lock down for now is an interesting precedent. The theory seem to be they are working to a new era of 'watertight oversight' that on the face of it is welcome... if consistently applied across the board. Not so great if the BBC only gets rigourous when things are not quite going they way of the required narrative or how events have been decided to be interpreted. I do recall instances when they have not been so reticent in commentating on speculative or areas or indeed matters of legal complexity.

Having listened to the interview this is of course just one 'side', when I see much of the problem in sensible discourse being that the majority of the 'heat' on (A)GWarming seems to be generated by two sets of extremes with rather 'all or nothing' dogmatic views canceling out any illumination. Actually, compared to a lot from the 'sceptical side' this one was pretty measured and lacking in tribal triumphalism.

More than I can say for others. Still bearing the scars off trying to point out on such as James Delingpole's Telegraph blogs that one swallow does not summer make, and projecting potentially corrupted work at one place to disproving any man-made involvement in climate change is about as sensible as Al Gore cherry picking everything supportive as gospel to push his views.

And it is true the views so far from supportive media do seem to have been 'dismissive' or 'defensive' at best. Just got these in my in-box:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/

http://climatedenial.org/2009/11/22/swiftboating-the-climate-scientists/

I have tended to be wary of anything that still thinks 'deniers' to be a suitable basis to kick off upon, especially as this seems to include any asking questions, which ironically puts one in mind of Dubya's 'if you are not with us, you're 'agin us' piece of dubious diplomatic engagement.

Something has happened, and blaming every one else, and trying to focus on the 'crime' of the hack seems a tad desperate. Look at MP's expenses. Not sure if the stand off role of such as the Guardian or BBC is helping allay the sense that they are being very cautious with 'news' here because it doesn't suit this time. Hardly helpful to reputations for objectivity in the future in this area... or others.

One key thing in the piece you feature is the speaker referring to a rather cosy circle of 'peer review'. This has been used as a substantive pillar in defence of any science, and I have been in the past persuaded that this is a powerful validation. Now another question has arisen in my mind to taint this oft trotted out standard... especially when from the same lips as politicians who say 'the science is settled', and the PR passed on without much more than a 'wot I fink' by an often less than challenging media.

One which, along with the pols, seems to find an ongoing lack of enthusiasm from the public to engage as being the 'fault' of the public, rather than any worthy feedback on the content of the message, the quality of its sharing, and hence the competence of the message creators and/or bearers. But there are glimmers.

http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/are-you-selfish-or-are-we-bad-journalists/

I made this comment over the weekend:

‘Are you selfish – or are we bad journalists ?’

There’s a sense of ‘them & us’ that may go some way to informing the second half of the question. If folk are not buying into a message (and it is not like it isn’t being shared… a lot) that usually tends to suggest there is a problem with its content… or the way it is being shared. QED.

There is so much swirling around that it is unsurprising folk are still confused, even when many in high office do state, and are supported by many in the media, that ‘the science is settled’. Then along comes something that might suggest it is not as settled as claimed before, often with deadlines that seem to pass with depressing frequency, only to be updated as things… ‘evolve’. Hence an understandable default to waiting and seeing seems hardly selfish, but possibly prescient.

And there is the focus of what does get shared. Too often it is absolutist terms that merge negative climate change with the various potential causes… and it is hard to get past the boogey man generic ‘it’, to get a handle on what the actual proposed ’solutions’ are, mean, what they will cost, achieve and how well all this has been structured to ensure the enviROI is positive. With contingencies. ‘Green’ is a broad church, and not everything that is demanded in its name need be ‘good’. One needs to prioritise, and honestly.

I recently had opportunities, via Newsnight and the Guardian, to pose questions to the respective climate and energy pols from the two major parties. Sadly, not much detail was forthcoming on many key issues.

Here are some areas of concern I posed, to find out what was, in the minds of these expert pols and their media supporters, those of priority:

Deforestation Shipping Population Autos (electric) Autos (hydrogen) Autos (LPG) Autos (oil dependent) Air travel Plastic bags Bottled water Immigration Renewables (tidal vs. wind vs. solar) Coal power Nuclear power Ethical Fashion Eating Pets Smart Grids Local micro-generation Boiler (and other efficiency-related job and green improving) scrappage TV size and power restriction bans Recycling for targets or box-ticks over viable recyclates Flooding defences Drain clearing Affordable housing Packaging Daylight saving

There are plenty more. Some critical. Some irrelevant. Honestly, which have had a lot of heat around them that didn’t deserve it, and how many need much more illumination than they have had so far?

Hence, maybe the questions for some media may better be: Is the critical issue still to:

a) Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that negative climate change is totally at the door of man, and crush all not sharing this belief before tackling anything else. Or, now…

b) Accept that man may be more than an insignificant fly spoiling what is shaping up as a dubious ointment, and come up with pragmatic, coherent, across-the-board, non-hypocritical policies of engagement that are conveyed (with pros and cons, sensible times rather than daft deadlines and £ numbers where possible) via honest, best-we-can-guess, still informative, non-dogmatic comms efforts that do not pander to extreme dogma and depend pretty much solely on fright, guilt, nanny, pedestal, finger wag and/or fine?

Especially from those who seem to think they are too busy, smart or important for what they say others need to do as such needing to apply to their own actions?

I’d vote the latter.

And once I start to trust in the non-hypocritical objectivity of the messengers more, I might again be more moved to engage with the messages they seem still baffled are not being received as broadcast (especially when, too often, it is in ‘only’ mode. Back to the answer to the second half of the question).

Current developments, especially in the face of the latest CRU revelations, seems to suggest the rather over-confident ’science is settled’ justifications for pushing through any old thing in the name of ‘climate’ can be on rather shaky foundations, upon which are often also perched even shakier journalistic conceits.

It still awaits moderation (I don't think they work during this period)
Friday 20 November 2009 2:12pm on 22 Nov 2009 85. At 11:38am on 22 Nov 2009, Roger Thomas
section 3 Land Use Scenarios is an example of multiple goal analysis applied to the Lake District during the 2001 FMD outbreak. It is also a brief introduction to flood prevention strategy.

Thank you. Interesting. And possibly yet another I might add to a growing list of examples of rather unfortunate consequences arising from the Law of Unintended Consequences, especially as regards animal husbandry. Last was a real head shaker regarding a ban on traditional pig feeding in light of some health scares, but which has turned them from a pretty effective carbon sink to a rather massive contributor.

No doubting it is all highly complex and difficult to balance, but as we seem to 'enjoy' Governments of all the knee jerks, I am not encouraged. On the news just now I have heard that maybe checks will be made in Brecon following another possible incident there. Stable doors do spring to mind.

Off now to try, again, to persuade Welsh Water that while it is possible that what we have put down the sink is causing blockages, it is rather odd that when there is flooding from the nearby Wye, that seems to coincide with the neighbourhood's sewage bubbling up out of the manhole in our driveway.
Friday 20 November 2009 10:45am on 22 Nov 2009 81. At 10:17am on 22 Nov 2009, Roger Thomas

Tx. Tried. Sadly my googling is not as good as it might be and there was nothing obvious to the link you suggest.

But as it seems we may be facing unprecedented future rainfalls, attributed by many to (A)GW, I remain interested in other possibly equally negative, complementary factors that can lead to flooding and how these may be addressed.

As money is tight, it may be better to understand what can be done, now, to help prevent such tragedies on a local scale, possibly through better land management. And also, if sadly necessary, defensive measures.

With such as boiler scrappage currently ignored in favour of handing more work to a BMW assemblyperson, I am struggling to maintain faith in the politico-media establishment prioritising high enviROI efforts over superficial voter-winners or ratings winners and finding convenient ways at pointing anywhere but at them..

We've had our second 'head for the hills' from the EA system in so many weeks, only to see the footy pitch by the river get waterlogged and no more. Sadly we no longer pay it heed. A metaphor there, to other, bigger pictures?
Friday 20 November 2009 09:17am on 22 Nov 2009 I am hearing a lot this morning about bridges being checked in Cumbria.

Appreciating the logistical problem a national effort would necessitate, I do hope this might not suggest a post horse-bolting postcode lottery, as I do suspect that floods of biblical proportions are poor respecters of council boundaries.
Ed Miliband replies 07:59am on 22 Nov 2009 Without wishing to get this blog shut down like Richard Black's, in light of recent events in the world of science I was wondering if Mr. Miliband had any comment on the validation of the claim 'the science is settled'?

On to things of a doing 'nature' that might actually help, looking at some comments here, this might be of interest:http://reheatbritain.org.uk/

Sadly, despite some support from government, not much from on high.

Seems a new Beemer makes more sense to some, when I'd reckon better boilers might serve domestic jobs and national emission reductions a tad better.

And, speaking of which, I just heard via SKY news a stat on shipping that really makes me hope this aspect will be a major part of the Copenhagen discussions as they tinker round the edges:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html
Why cars are greener than buses (maybe) 07:34am on 22 Nov 2009
188. At 00:56am on 21 Nov 2009, David0123 wrote:
Could Simon Rose (#185) please provide some evidence that Environmental scientists have to produce dishonest science to keep their jobs? It is an extraordinary claim and need some strong evidence to support it.

Shsssh! That kind of talk can get blogs closed down.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/11/copenhagen_countdown_17_days.html

As always, if you think I've missed something important in this weekly round-up, please post a comment.

Update 2309: Because comments were posted quoting excerpts apparently from the hacked Climate Research Unit e-mails, and because there are potential legal issues connected with publishing this material, we have temporarily removed all comments until we can ensure that watertight oversight is in place.

There is a certain irony in that penultimate para, all things considered. But a new era of watertight oversight is to be welcomed, if and when it arrives, and is applied consistently and not according to the needs of a perceived narrative or to interpret events.

It's entirely possible that this 'incident' was/is/will be a flash in the pan, but we have been subjected to many such before consistently and even more speculatively, across the entire mainstream media. And here it's not like every other one has been weighing in in. Seemingly, bar one. Rare professionalism?

Personally I think it best these days to hew close the line and let the chips fall where they may as things evolve. 'Evidence', especially across the blogsphere, is now cowboy territory, and it seems odd to suddenly get concerned about its validity now. I have seen howlers from all quarters, which just a fact of life now.

But I'd still like the opportunity to find out more to make my own mind up.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

JunkkMale