Never ask me about worst-case scenarios. If, for example, you asked me what the worst-case scenario is for the melting of the Greenland glaciers, I'd reply that the worst case is that the melting goes into reverse, the Northern hemisphere is covered with ice, and we all freeze. That Al Gore would look pretty silly, then - so at least it wouldn't be all bad.
Or the alternative worst-case scenario is that the melting ice uncovers a hibernating nest of krakens and triffids, who take over the world with a race of telepathic Canadians. That would be pretty bad as well.
So when the Guardian tells us that the "worst-case scenario" for the Greenland glaciers may not be realised, I figure that this is, frankly, stating the obvious. The range of scenarios goes from best case (all the climate scientists are totally wrong and we're merely wasting our money) to worst case (loads of sea level rise and Husborne Crawley fills up with refugees from Peterborough and Walthamstow). There's a whole range of scenarios in between these two.
In ordinary situations, the most likely case will be somewhere in between best and worst case. Of course, this doesn't make for good headlines. Which is why I'm not really writing this and you're not really reading this, as we all died of eating infected beef fifteen years ago.
So if I edited the Guardian, i'd rewrite the headline as "Worst-case Scenario was never likely to happen" or "Scale of Worst-case scenario downgraded to slightly less-bad". Which, if nothing else, shows you why I don't edit the Guardian, I guess.
I've learned to read the Guardian, occasionally and selectively. As Public Service Recruiter and Media mouth piece, Labour at rest, I find it a bit to clingy and tree hugging for my taste.
ReplyDeleteIt is a useful outlet for those who don't fit into any specific left leaning political category. The Green's don't like it as it's not radical enough.The Tories don't like it as it pays to much attention to what 'Sleek New Labour' pontificates about. The Liberals love it because if reflects their fuzzy, we stand for anything and nothing philosophy, and the Right Wing loathe it because it shows up their extremely radical views on anything from the Change to Decimal Currency to the Price of a Ferrari.
The environment is always a good distraction from the run of the mill party politics, because from whatever perspective you argue, you are bound to be nearly right, since the science is either proven/not proven/non-existent depending which way the wind is blowing. It keeps our mind of the latest raid on pensioners mite, from the Pasty Tax and the unfortunate business with MP's expenses and relationship with News Corp, which once so cosy, is now a bed of nails for the lot of them.
No, the Guardian is the hook that you can hang anything on, particularly a Tory if you are Labour and a distraction from the Sun, which is a traitorous tabloid, which swings from left to right with the smallest breeze.
"Refugees from Walthamstow" - that's blatant scaremongering!
ReplyDelete...and would you want to edit the Grauniad anyway???
ReplyDeleteSo those people trying to cover the entirety of our ice sheets with reflective cloth are daft and wasting their time since the worst case is not likely? And here I was going to join them this summer-I'm so grateful that you spared me from that silliness.
ReplyDeleteIt's the young people who lack this thing called "perspective" that perpetuate the fearmongering. They prefer life in the extremes because grey area is really hard to understand when you have no experience to draw upon. The media likes extremes because it draws an audience. When my daughter and I talk environmental science and I state facts that prove a centrist point of view is most likely, she calls me a "bitter old woman". Bah!
What I've noticed recently, is that there appears to be a surfeit of poorly made, Z grade disaster moves being shown on satellite channels. They all have the same bumbling characters, who couldn't tell a plague from a tornado and who manage to die in their hundreds from sheer panic when the worst happens.
ReplyDeleteMost of these films are based on one sort of environmental disaster or another, which could have been avoided 'if only'.....
There is always a solution, where the eventual destruction of the world is avoided by the hero(ine) who pulls of some stunt that stops the flood/averts the earthquake/diverts the meteor/kills the swarms of insects/birds/outlandish beasts.
If we are so good at thinking up the solutions to the disasters found in these films, why are the authorities and emergency planners not appointing them as consultants because they have it all sewn up.