| |
|
I'm not the biggest television watcher at the moment, but caught the above documentary on C4 last night (that was until Mrs The Ball came home from class and complained that she didn't like the tone and that she wanted to watch the Al Franken thing on BBC4).
Anyway, in something that tried very hard to remain centralist in the argument of man-made carbon dioxide emissions being to blame for global warming, I thought it was very interesting, very well put together, very measured and very good. I was particularly interested in how much politiking it was suggested goes into the Green debate, and always has - and liked the fact that they set out from the off to remove the emotion from the debate (something that drives me mad is the riled up new-born eco-warrior spouting "facts"). It was interesting that it complained of the media doing political work in charging the debtate, and also, looking in the G2 (considering that this is something that they, along with the Indie, have been championing again and again), that so few newspapers actaully recommended it, or highlighted the programme as worth while - in fact the G2 recommends for yesterday were - The Bill (seriously), Skins (FFS) Boston Legal and that Al Franken thing. So of their TV picks of the day only 2 were actually on terrestrial televsion, the others on freeview, and of the four, only one wasn't a soap style drama - not that I'm saying these are bad - just that it seems a little out of balance.
Anyway - I've always shyed away from talking green issues (cars piss me off, simply because they get in the way, and cars dropping fat kids off to school really get in the way!) because whenever I've said "well, that's only one side of the argument, and I'd like to hear the other side before I make a decision" most people, much like Mrs The Ball, react emotionally and angrily at my insensitivity at the poor polar bears etc. Especially when I point out that most research grants are awarded and re-awarded if you can fit in a zeitgeistee angle - I've always said if you have a centre for the study of man mad emmisions being responsible for global warming, they are very unlikely to say at the end of their grant year "yeah, we found out that it's not the case - our work is done, thank you" and saunter off to the next science-case.
So, did anyone see this? Did you like/dislike it? Are we being lied to for political reasons in the great green debate? |
|
|
