When approximately was this 'misbehaviour' on R4 Today? I will write a complaint to the Beeb, but they like to know the programme and roughly when the offence occurred (in the case of long programmes especially).
Honesty implies the dismissal of faulty policy, and while the more individuals who say that the better, I suggest it won't have much effect on public discourse until an institution with a standing comparable to the IPCC has the gumption to say so too. This was a proposal of yours in 2020, and I wonder how you're getting on with it. As for humour, would mockery really be out of place? What about the tendency to imply that belief has the same status as knowledge, that what counts is how gloomy or otherwise one is? As Elizabeth Kolbert was quoted as saying recently, 'how we feel about the climate makes no difference to it' - a beautiful bit of derision!.
I've often heard the subject trivialised on Radio 4. A few months back, Evan Davis was interviewing Luke Tryl (leader of 'More In Common', a so-called 'social change agency') about action to tackle climate change. Tryl said that part of the problem was that people didn't want to feel 'punished' by these measures. He cited the example of a woman who'd approached him at a focus group meeting, who said 'I'm all in favour of doing things to tackle the scale of the problem facing the planet.... but the new environmentally-friendly straws they have at McDonald's now are useless for drinking a McFlurrie.' And Evan Davis just accepted that - fatuous, wrong-headed and utterly ludicrous as it was. Erm.... how about taking your own metal straw along? Better still... how about staying away from the likes of McDonald's in the first place? These fast-fooderies are now so embedded in our society that it seems that even quite intelligent people are simply unable (or, perhaps, unwilling) to make the necessary connections.
Brings me back every time to Edward S Herman's and Noam Chomsky's excellent and vital book 'Manufacturing Consent' - except you'd like to think that the publicly-funded BBC would not be in sway to the corporations, advertisers, fossil-fuel barons, etc. Hah! I've long doubted their 'independence' and 'impartiality' over anything.
... but HOW to wake people up? As I see it 95% of humans will wake up and do something to make a change only when they're faced with a problem that will affect them personally. And immediately. And which clearly makes their lives more uncomfortable than doing nothing.
I am of the opinion that people will act when they know how devastating and immediate is the threat, although if you are proved right then we are well and truly doomed.
Incidentally, I don't expect any proper response from the BBC: I complained about bias in economics reporting and lack of alternative voices on the 'fiscal rules' and 'we can't afford it' narrative; and got a response that said it would take longer to look into... then, nothing. The BBC is no longer reliable as a balanced source of factual reporting and analysis, with rare exceptions (individual journalists who dig deeper and think wider).
Unfortunately, they're not alone. I'd say no more than one or two percent of people have the faintest idea of the danger we're in, and how quickly the worst impacts are likely to rain down upon us (literally, in some cases).
The media is partly to blame; only the Guardian, and perhaps Washington Post are remotely close to reporting the issues with the appropriate level of gravity, and you could read the right-wing press on a daily basis without gaining any sense whatsoever of the seriousness of our predicament.
A climate scientist recently appeared on Julia Hartley-Brewer's Talk TV show only to be heckled and interrupted constantly by the host. At one point she called his analysis of the issues 'ridiculous'. Would this happen in any other field of science? A mathematician, a chemist? a biologist? Why do climate scientists alone merit such ridicule? Possibly because their conclusions interfere with some people's world views. "By all means do your science, just don't arrive at any findings that cast doubt on my deeply held beliefs."
I've noticed a growth in 'climate conspiracy theories' online. Evidently many people in the US are now noticing the bizarre weather patterns, and rather than admit they were wrong all along, cook up the most ridiculous conspiracy theories to explain the anomalies (eg HAARP, cloud seeding, Chinese weather control satellites, Jewish space lasers).
Meanwhile, Florida have just passed a law banning public institutions from even mentioning climate change. Yeah, bury that head even deeper into the sand...that ought to solve the problem.
Indeed Patrick. I wouldn't argue with any of that. It's all pretty grim - virtually no mention of the climate in UK electioneering so far.
I know. I listened to Rachel Reeves yesterday, describing her growth plans on The Rest Is Politics. Made me want to scream.
Grow into what!!!??
They're on another bleedin' planet, Bill.
No laughing matter indeed.
https://www.wired.com/story/zombie-fires-arctic-causes/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/panama-prepares-evacuate-first-island-151000223.html
To be honest, I suspect if was slightly nervous laughter in the Today studio.
This was a few weeks back now, so old hat really. I would save your complaint until the next time. There is bound to be a next time.
When approximately was this 'misbehaviour' on R4 Today? I will write a complaint to the Beeb, but they like to know the programme and roughly when the offence occurred (in the case of long programmes especially).
Honesty implies the dismissal of faulty policy, and while the more individuals who say that the better, I suggest it won't have much effect on public discourse until an institution with a standing comparable to the IPCC has the gumption to say so too. This was a proposal of yours in 2020, and I wonder how you're getting on with it. As for humour, would mockery really be out of place? What about the tendency to imply that belief has the same status as knowledge, that what counts is how gloomy or otherwise one is? As Elizabeth Kolbert was quoted as saying recently, 'how we feel about the climate makes no difference to it' - a beautiful bit of derision!.
I've often heard the subject trivialised on Radio 4. A few months back, Evan Davis was interviewing Luke Tryl (leader of 'More In Common', a so-called 'social change agency') about action to tackle climate change. Tryl said that part of the problem was that people didn't want to feel 'punished' by these measures. He cited the example of a woman who'd approached him at a focus group meeting, who said 'I'm all in favour of doing things to tackle the scale of the problem facing the planet.... but the new environmentally-friendly straws they have at McDonald's now are useless for drinking a McFlurrie.' And Evan Davis just accepted that - fatuous, wrong-headed and utterly ludicrous as it was. Erm.... how about taking your own metal straw along? Better still... how about staying away from the likes of McDonald's in the first place? These fast-fooderies are now so embedded in our society that it seems that even quite intelligent people are simply unable (or, perhaps, unwilling) to make the necessary connections.
Indeed Kevin. It is all pretty grim.
Brings me back every time to Edward S Herman's and Noam Chomsky's excellent and vital book 'Manufacturing Consent' - except you'd like to think that the publicly-funded BBC would not be in sway to the corporations, advertisers, fossil-fuel barons, etc. Hah! I've long doubted their 'independence' and 'impartiality' over anything.
... but HOW to wake people up? As I see it 95% of humans will wake up and do something to make a change only when they're faced with a problem that will affect them personally. And immediately. And which clearly makes their lives more uncomfortable than doing nothing.
I am of the opinion that people will act when they know how devastating and immediate is the threat, although if you are proved right then we are well and truly doomed.
Incidentally, I don't expect any proper response from the BBC: I complained about bias in economics reporting and lack of alternative voices on the 'fiscal rules' and 'we can't afford it' narrative; and got a response that said it would take longer to look into... then, nothing. The BBC is no longer reliable as a balanced source of factual reporting and analysis, with rare exceptions (individual journalists who dig deeper and think wider).
Unfortunately, they're not alone. I'd say no more than one or two percent of people have the faintest idea of the danger we're in, and how quickly the worst impacts are likely to rain down upon us (literally, in some cases).
The media is partly to blame; only the Guardian, and perhaps Washington Post are remotely close to reporting the issues with the appropriate level of gravity, and you could read the right-wing press on a daily basis without gaining any sense whatsoever of the seriousness of our predicament.
A climate scientist recently appeared on Julia Hartley-Brewer's Talk TV show only to be heckled and interrupted constantly by the host. At one point she called his analysis of the issues 'ridiculous'. Would this happen in any other field of science? A mathematician, a chemist? a biologist? Why do climate scientists alone merit such ridicule? Possibly because their conclusions interfere with some people's world views. "By all means do your science, just don't arrive at any findings that cast doubt on my deeply held beliefs."
I've noticed a growth in 'climate conspiracy theories' online. Evidently many people in the US are now noticing the bizarre weather patterns, and rather than admit they were wrong all along, cook up the most ridiculous conspiracy theories to explain the anomalies (eg HAARP, cloud seeding, Chinese weather control satellites, Jewish space lasers).
Meanwhile, Florida have just passed a law banning public institutions from even mentioning climate change. Yeah, bury that head even deeper into the sand...that ought to solve the problem.
I despair.
Rant over.