Posts by Chaos Buddha
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Indeed, biggy-up to Russ for the podium-finish; verily, "all your blogs are belong to us."
:)
-
I take your point, but a part of me wonders, does every documentary or piece of non-fiction have to pass the 'perfectly balanced/showing both sides of the argument' test?
. . . no, I guess not.
But if a documentary's aim is to be educative, then surely the burden of proof must be a consideration? I mean, 'Touching The Void' was an awesome documentary, but that was more the telling of a true story, and thus didn't require any proofs. AIT isn't simply relaying a story, it's educating viewers as to the factuality of a hot topic. And it's doing so in an eye-opening, pseudo-sensationalistic way which, in this age of hyper-information, can too easily make people lose faith in what is presented.
But I hear ya, and am sure that a lot of this is my scientist-educating brain needing some form of 'peer review' before it can accept something. Which wouldn't exactly make for riveting viewing, I agree.
If after 10 years of most of the major CO2 producers cutting back, we haven't seen any appreciable changes in climate, perhaps it could be scaled back again.
Alternatively if, after 10 years of most of the major CO2 producers cutting back we haven't seen any appreciable changes in climate then maybe the whole CO2-emissions thing isn't a factor in all this. A lot of blame is being thrown around, even more solutions are being tossed around, and still more big money is being spent. On something that we don't yet accurately know what the problem/cause/effect is. Surely if we could focus all that effort into actually discovering the source, effectors and factors behind what we're currently observing, then we can more accurately -- and more effectively -- do something about it.
I kinda like science. But when people quote Science as saying something is something, and people then react to it only to find it isn't that 'something' . . . you get the whole 'cry wolf' thing happening. And people then lose faith in and blame Science, when they should be blaming idiots like Micheal Moore who are making the unweighted claims in the first place. Science has -- and requires -- necessary rigour for a very good reason.
All of which isn't to say that I'm saying any of anyone's claims here are false . . .
Here's an article that looks at the topic from both sides.
. . . cheers, Hamish.
Will meditate on it tonight . . .
-
I don't think anyone's doubting that An Inconweenient Truth was a good piece, especially if compared up against any of the excuses for non-fiction Michael Moore has served up recently.
My beans with it though was that it only showed one side of the story, without showing opposing and/or comparative data to give weight to the points it was trying to make. Gore showed some really good graphs, and made some very persuasive points. But a sole graph can be taken out of context, and points can be explained to represent the presenters point of view. If other background/baseline date had been included therein, it would have given the perspective needed to bring weight to the argument. Not that I inherently mistrust Gore . . . just as I don't inherently mistrust Dr. David Bellamy.
I *hated* the whole GE debate because as a biological scientist, I'm well and truly on the other side of it. I know what the facts and reality of the debate (sic.) are, yet had to endure the media's sensationalising of it time and time again. With respect to the whole climate change thing, I'm as un-learned as everyone else . . . I *want* to form my own opinion, but having seen how the mainstream media origami'd the GE thing, I'm loath to take anything I see/read there from that general direction as being solid. I want facts, I need solid data from both sides of the fence before I can decide which sit to sit on. But there just doesn't seem to be a reliable source of good, honest, unbiased information.
An Inconweenient Truth was a good story, but needed more comparative data to give it's claims weight.
-
Sure, if I could find a bloody place that made them in Auckland.
. . . amen, brother.
After competing in a bodybuilding show circa 1993, the first thing I did after jumping off stage was head straight for a double chicken souvlaki. Not beer, now hamburgers; a souvlaki. *And* the guy that ran in then sounded just like Con the Fruiterer from The Comedy Company . . .
My own tour of Lincoln was, if nothing else, worth it solely for Hillier's pies. You know it's a steak n' mushroom pie when you peek under that oh-so-yummy pastry lid to see a huge, whole field mushroom nearly the size of the pie, interfilled with luscious, moist meat from the actual cow, and not it's hooves. And if the so-many-awards-on-the-wall-you-can't-see-the-wallpaper don't do it for you, then maybe the large line wending out the door and down the road -- even given the size of Lincoln township -- will.
Bottom line: in Lincoln? Hie thee unto Hillier's . . .
-
Same here, that's why I'm boycotting all of Dunedin!
. . . unfortunately, that won't work for us Aucklanders, as we're all already boycotting everything south of the Bombay Hills. Apparently.
Flashmob, anyone . . ?
-
With respect to Lang vs. Subway (2007), what more can be done?
Whilst alliteratively appealing, bloggers boycotting Subway could be a rather too select population to make the necessary dent. Unless the type of person wont to blog is also the type of person wont to stop off for a Subway snack. Or are bloggers more McD's types? It will be interesting to see if a social stance initiated within the blogsphere could gain the momentum outside of it to be noted.
I myself partake too infrequently for my own absence to be significant, but I feel the need to do something that gets noticed; it would be satisfying to know that the heavy-handers behind all this realise that people are actively acting due to their choices. I fear that too-small a proportion of the population choosing to disenfranchise themselves from the franchise would be but a ripple in the commercial waters . . .
-
Verily, I can vouch for the in-skirts of Christchurch oft being an eerie place to be at nights, during my Uni days of the early 90's. However, I did find that a) hanging out with a scrum of front-row-forwards and locks generally helped at keeping the angst at bay, and b) that rows of parked motorbikes made for most excellent dominos.
Ah, memories of good ol' Warners . . . and nights at The Loft, with everyone a-jig so merrily that the floor seemed to buckle with last Footwear Co. booted feet. Fortunately, the whole 'resonance' thing hadn't been invented then.
:)