Alas, for better or worse, environmental issues have left the realm of scientific/rational discourse and have entered the general rabble of popularist political discussion. By that I mean that regardless of the merit, or otherwise, of climate concerns one now has diminishing chances of sensible resolution there. Of course one must have wider debate than just at scientific level, but the 'Average Joe/Jill' has almost no hope of independent ( non-spun ) information sources.
It can be a tremendously subtle problem - for how many of you when reading "Revealed: the environmental impact of Google searches" did the question "Revealed: the environmental impact of not doing Google searches" arise? Is the overall footprint less ( assuming that matters ) by having a centralised search facility? Such sentences as "Google is secretive about its energy consumption and carbon footprint. It also refuses to divulge the locations of its data centres." deserve challenge too. Does that mean that Google simply didn't answer this particular reporter's phone calls, or something else quite unrelated to the topic? Note that I am not referring to the truth or otherwise of whether Google is doing X, Y or Z - but a commentary on the level of discourse about that.
I suspect one will find 'factoids' abounding. When I was a lad ( 1970's ) our national broadcaster used to simply report facts in a news bulletin ( at 7pm ) and later one could have a choice of opinions & commentary ( from 7.30 onwards ). There was still room to manipulate - by omission say. But now 'fact' and opinion are so intermixed without delineation and attribution as such. It is often quicker to simply glance at who is saying it and you'll readily predict the content.
DownUnda we have a profound distrust of political processes and the media, which is deeper than the Marianas Trench. The concern is not about global warming, or otherwise, as such - but who is/isn't lying to us about it.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Good Point Mike, but I think this has been happening since the beginning of time I learnt a long time ago you can massage data to fit any reality you think you believe in just, by omitting a few of the facts.
and that what the Media does. They are to lazy to do their homework.
edit: or gullible to do their homework
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
For instance when, say, the COBE data came in for publication there was no shortage of detailed explanation - plenty of data, graphics and analysis to pore over in the public domain. Fortunately the topic was penetrable with a modicum of effort by most. However there is a dearth of that level of revealed information & analysis for the climate change issue. The 'average Jill/Joe' is going to maybe conclude any number of things in the absence of such revelations:
- it doesn't exist.
- it does, but is better or worse than stated.
- it does, but is not anthropogenic.
- etc....
Even with CFC's the base data was much simpler ( compared to broad statements about weather patterns ) - measure the rise and fall of ozone and compare with the rise and fall of that class of substance ( at the relevant altitude ).
So I would observe that climate questions are both intrinsically harder problems to make statements about ( as an intellectual challenge ) and harder to communicate as well. It has a much thicker layer of assumptions than other problems. It is not the sort of area to be left for politicians/media to manage. Personally I was surprised when the environmental agenda went via that route/ground. I would have thought it more sensible to keep 'grass roots' on the topic - keep it simple and direct - which has a much better track record of success. I think a Rachel Carson is needed to elucidate. I think David Attenborough was approached many times along that line - he is on record as refusing and preferring to stick with simply displaying the natural world ( which he is superb at ) and letting us draw our own conclusions.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Food for thought? Revealed:
)
Food for thought? Revealed: the environmental impact of Google searches
I saw that report in the
)
I saw that report in the Sunday Times. It seems wea re getting evermore panicy about doing anything because of the greenhouse gas contributions.
Perhaps two fingers is the reply we should make?
Shih-Tzu are clever, cuddly, playful and rule!! Jack Russell are feisty!
Alas, for better or worse,
)
Alas, for better or worse, environmental issues have left the realm of scientific/rational discourse and have entered the general rabble of popularist political discussion. By that I mean that regardless of the merit, or otherwise, of climate concerns one now has diminishing chances of sensible resolution there. Of course one must have wider debate than just at scientific level, but the 'Average Joe/Jill' has almost no hope of independent ( non-spun ) information sources.
It can be a tremendously subtle problem - for how many of you when reading "Revealed: the environmental impact of Google searches" did the question "Revealed: the environmental impact of not doing Google searches" arise? Is the overall footprint less ( assuming that matters ) by having a centralised search facility? Such sentences as "Google is secretive about its energy consumption and carbon footprint. It also refuses to divulge the locations of its data centres." deserve challenge too. Does that mean that Google simply didn't answer this particular reporter's phone calls, or something else quite unrelated to the topic? Note that I am not referring to the truth or otherwise of whether Google is doing X, Y or Z - but a commentary on the level of discourse about that.
I suspect one will find 'factoids' abounding. When I was a lad ( 1970's ) our national broadcaster used to simply report facts in a news bulletin ( at 7pm ) and later one could have a choice of opinions & commentary ( from 7.30 onwards ). There was still room to manipulate - by omission say. But now 'fact' and opinion are so intermixed without delineation and attribution as such. It is often quicker to simply glance at who is saying it and you'll readily predict the content.
DownUnda we have a profound distrust of political processes and the media, which is deeper than the Marianas Trench. The concern is not about global warming, or otherwise, as such - but who is/isn't lying to us about it.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Good Point Mike, but I think
)
Good Point Mike, but I think this has been happening since the beginning of time I learnt a long time ago you can massage data to fit any reality you think you believe in just, by omitting a few of the facts.
and that what the Media does. They are to lazy to do their homework.
edit: or gullible to do their homework
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
It's a funny thing isn't? :-)
)
It's a funny thing isn't? :-)
For instance when, say, the COBE data came in for publication there was no shortage of detailed explanation - plenty of data, graphics and analysis to pore over in the public domain. Fortunately the topic was penetrable with a modicum of effort by most. However there is a dearth of that level of revealed information & analysis for the climate change issue. The 'average Jill/Joe' is going to maybe conclude any number of things in the absence of such revelations:
- it doesn't exist.
- it does, but is better or worse than stated.
- it does, but is not anthropogenic.
- etc....
Even with CFC's the base data was much simpler ( compared to broad statements about weather patterns ) - measure the rise and fall of ozone and compare with the rise and fall of that class of substance ( at the relevant altitude ).
So I would observe that climate questions are both intrinsically harder problems to make statements about ( as an intellectual challenge ) and harder to communicate as well. It has a much thicker layer of assumptions than other problems. It is not the sort of area to be left for politicians/media to manage. Personally I was surprised when the environmental agenda went via that route/ground. I would have thought it more sensible to keep 'grass roots' on the topic - keep it simple and direct - which has a much better track record of success. I think a Rachel Carson is needed to elucidate. I think David Attenborough was approached many times along that line - he is on record as refusing and preferring to stick with simply displaying the natural world ( which he is superb at ) and letting us draw our own conclusions.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Panic mode on!...All
)
Panic mode on!...All computers will be disengaged from the Internet and powered down...Further communications will be done by motor car.
My rear brake light wishes to
)
My rear brake light wishes to be friends with your front headlight........
;-)
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
RE: My rear brake light
)
One crash means no...two crashes means yes.
Does a hand slap on the
)
Does a hand slap on the dashboard mean NO or just "I want you to do an emergency stop?"
Shih-Tzu are clever, cuddly, playful and rule!! Jack Russell are feisty!
RE: Does a hand slap on the
)
I think the rules are...Knock the three times on the dashboard if you say yes...Knock twice on the door...If the answer is no.