Amelia's Magazine | Valentine’s Day

Listings

    No events to show

Follow

Twitter

|

Facebook

|

MySpace

|

Last.fm

RSS

Subscribe

Top 25 Art Blog - Creative Tourist

Valentine’s Day

A gift guide with the emphasis on hand-made tokens of love

Written by Rachael Oku

So, this website we all know there’s been a bit of a hoo-hah following the disclosure of some important emails that reveal that the data featured as key facts in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on climate change may not be 100% correct. You do know about this, pill right? It’s been front page of the Guardian for a while… and perhaps more importantly it’s given all those climate change deniers out there a huge amount of grist for their petty little mill. And that really is bad news.

I haven’t been following the ins and outs of this fandango in massive detail but when my parents invited me along to this hastily convened Royal Institution lecture I leapt at the chance to perch on their infamous red velvet tiered seating amongst the great and the good (read: a mix of moneyed old fogeys with too much time on their hands and geeky young science types who would rather engage in debate than go to the pub on a Friday night).

We were introduced to the panel by James Randerson, environment editor at the Guardian and wearer of silly striped tie. You’ve gotta love that look. It was mere moments, I tell you, before the heckling started… James put the slightly ambiguous question “Has global warming increased the toll of natural disasters?” to the panelists, which immediately prompted yelps for clarification from indignant men all around me. “Over what period of time, and what kind of cost?” asked one. (Certain men seem to get very difficult the older they get, have you noticed?) James looked sufficiently rattled – “Can we at least agree that there is man made global warming?” he asked, pleaded. “NO!” came the emphatic answer from a man with wild hair and an even wilder look in his eye, sitting just to my right. Uh oh, I was in the close company of a denialist – this should be fun! “Gosh, I didn’t think this would be so hard!” chuckled James nervously.

And then we were racing straight into the presentations, starting with leading climate scientist Bob Muir-Wood, who talked two to the dozen as he raced through slides. Since 2001 there has been huge hype over “disaster costs” with the media being “whipped into a frenzy”, and predictions of up to 500% more floods, mudslides, hailstorms, droughts, ice storms and wildfires being reported as possibilities of the near future. In 2003 the French experienced “la canicule” – a summer of such intense heat (the hottest in 500 years) that thousands died. But then there was a “death deficit” in the following year. Was this because the vulnerable were looked after better or they’d all died already? Muir-Wood used this as an example of how hard it is to read and understand data without looking at the bigger picture. Another example he used is the major investments made in infrastructures over recent years; for instance Japan has thrown “huge amounts of concrete at flood defences” since 1959, when Typhoon Vera, the strongest Japanese storm in recorded history, hit its shores. Consequently the storm would have had a dramatically lower cost if it had happened today. These outlying factors make it very hard to accurately predict or assess statistics. He concluded that there is only a trend for elevated costs (of disasters) if you look at graphs since the 1970s.

Bob Ward, who works for LSE, then took centre stage to defend the IPCC. “As always there is a caveat,” he explained; “is any one event an effect of climate change? It’s so hard to match the attribution, which makes it difficult to map trends.” Behind him a slide detailed how climate change might decrease the chance of frost at night, which prompted some loud chuckles from the denialists in the audience, who as ever, seem confused by the difference between climate and weather. Bob clarified that we must look at the numbers of people affected and we can clearly see that insurance losses have risen since the 1950s which means many more people have been displaced or injured by natural events. A funny little graph proved the point that floods, droughts, storms and earthquakes have become the biggies in terms of human cost. However, there is as yet, insufficient evidence of a firm link with climate change. Naturally, the biggest losses have happened where the greatest number of people and properties have been involved.

And then it was time for the spanner in the works to take to the stand. Roger Pielke is a climate disasters specialist from the University of Colorado. “Uncertainty. Get used to it,” he announced. His conclusions came first and seemed to echo those of Ward’s. “Societal factors alone are responsible for increased losses,” he postulated, but emphasised that he advocates decarbonising the economy because 1.5 million people don’t have access to fossil fuels and need to find alternative energy supplies. “This could also deal with the thorny, messy climate change problem.” He then talked us clearly through his immaculate presentation, showing us that according to Excel there is no upward trend for disaster losses between 1900-2001. Yup, his graph appeared to be flatlining alright. And then we came to it: Pielke’s unequivocal evidence that despite the views of experts the IPCC saw fit to publish misleading data in its 2007 report, even alluding to his own agreement to use a problematic graph, which had not been given. “If the data doesn’t support the claim, don’t publish it!” This evinced yet more excited snorts from the denialist next to me, and when I glanced over at Bob Ward he was shifting uncomfortably in his seat. Oooooh, the graphs had been drawn and it was time for blood – sorry I mean questions – from the audience.

A lump appeared, bumping along the velvet curtains behind the stage, clearly beating a hasty retreat and momentarily distracting Randerson. “Are we in disagreement over the vulnerability of planet, or the process of science?” asked someone. Because actually the reason everyone had come to this lecture was to find out how the process of the IPCC could have fallen apart so dramatically. Apart from the denialists of course, and one in particular. “I am from Weather Action,” said the loudly snorting man next to me. “We are long range forecasters, and our evidence shows that CO2 does not drive climate, which has all been made up by carbon traders and fraudulent people.” In fact, according to Piers Corbyn, all extreme events are caused by the sun. All of them folks. Nothing to do with us spunking vast quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. You know, I just don’t get how some humans can be so entirely arrogant, to think that our activities will never affect our fragile planet. I wonder how history will look back on people like Corbyn, who wanted to know if the IPCC could now be scrapped so we can “prepare for ‘real’ disasters?” Pielke categorically declined to engage in a debate “that can be held elsewhere” – i.e. whether climate change is happening (yawn). Muir-Wood reminded Piers that he prophezised chaotic wind storms four years ago. “We’re 85% right!” heckled Corbyn. Ward went further still. “There’s no end to my disagreement with Piers,” he said. “I don’t know where to start.” I got the impression that he’s met Corbyn before. After the debate I took a rubbishy designed printout from Corbyn (Why are spurious campaigning bodies so good at bad graphic design? It’s endemic. Please debate.) My favourite box out reads: CRUSADE AGAINST THE SCIENCE DENIERS! Print out this newssheet and show it to a Global Warmer you know and ask them: “Is all this from solar flares, to the ionosphere, the stratosphere, Scotland, China & the Timor Sea caused by driving cars?” Yup, you’re winning me over with that argument alright. (If you know what he’s on about can you let me know please? Ta.)

Muir-Wood then made a most pertinent point for a social media addict like myself, which was that the data for climate change is not static, and this is the major stumbling block of a one-off report such as that produced in 2007 by the IPCC. New data is being discovered or disproved all the time and the way in which such information is shared on a global level must become more fluid otherwise reports too quickly become outmoded. Of course the internet provides the perfect forum for such an idea, and the organisation of a scientific advisory body such as the IPCC must reflect this.

Someone then raised a query about the amount of money the IPCC receives to do its work, which led to the clarification that the IPCC is run along similar lines to any academic body, with scientists contributing their time and knowledge because they think it’s worthwhile and not for financial gain. And herein lies one of the biggest problems. Whilst folks like IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri must find work elsewhere (for Indian mining conglomerate TATA, which stands to make large sums from “climate doom scenarios”) there will by necessity be a conflict of interest. Our worthy panelists appeared to be in universal agreement that the IPCC needs to be reformed. “But it needs to cost more to do a good job” said Muir-Wood. “The problem is that everything is done on the cheap,” agreed Pielke. Perhaps if some proper cash was spent on collecting and refining climate change data there would be less need to use “grey data” and there would be fewer mishaps of the kind that is now rocking the scientific community. It seems obvious that a lack of resources has led to corner cutting, and as Pielke pointed out there needs to be clear boundaries between producing data and giving political advice. If more money is spent on the IPCC then there will automatically be more accountability, and more trust.

By the end of this whirlwind journey into the minds of climate scientists Ward, Pielke and Muir-Wood, the protagonists seemed to be in agreement that since the 1970s there has definitely been increases in the cost of natural disasters. But a final show of hands from the audience showed that not many people (far less than at the start of the lecture) believed that global warming has increased the toll of natural disasters. I myself was part of the “don’t knows” because although I suspect it to be so, the correlation has clearly never been shown. This final moment highlighted just how much damage the revelations of the past few months have incurred; wherein people have looked at the brouhaha in the media and concluded that all scientists are liars who will happily bend the truth to suit their own means. And yes, it seems some have indeed cobbled together dodgy information, and in doing so have massively set back the most important movement of our lifetimes – just 25% of the population now believes that climate change is a serious issue, which is devastating news when we have so much work to do. If data cannot be proved then it clearly shouldn’t be used. What were those scientists thinking?

But, remember this – as Bob Ward surmised (and I’m paraphrasing here, obviously he didn’t say the t-word and all other poor language is entirely my own). “Are you willing to take the risk that climate change is all a load of old twaddle? No, we don’t know how much it will affect us or when, but affect us it will. If we do nothing we risk suffering the most serious consequences, and they ain’t pretty my friends.” Yes, human beings (even scientists) are fallible. The IPCC has made mistakes. Hopefully some important lessons have been learnt about how data is collected and presented, and what it might cost to do a good job. But we mustn’t let a tiny set-back stop us from striving for a different world, one where the battle against climate change encompasses so much more than just the environment. It’s about making the world a better place for all, and that means massive changes in how humans live.
So, for sale we all know there’s been a bit of a hoo-hah following the disclosure of some important emails that reveal that the data featured as key facts in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on climate change may not be 100% correct. You do know about this, adiposity right? It’s been front page of the Guardian for a while… and perhaps more importantly it’s given all those climate change deniers out there a huge amount of grist for their petty little mill. And that really is bad news.

I haven’t been following the ins and outs of this fandango in massive detail but when my parents invited me along to this hastily convened Royal Institution lecture I leapt at the chance to perch on their infamous red velvet tiered seating amongst the great and the good (read: a mix of moneyed old fogeys with too much time on their hands and geeky young science types who would rather engage in debate than go to the pub on a Friday night).

We were introduced to the panel by James Randerson, online environment editor at the Guardian and wearer of silly striped tie. You’ve gotta love that look. It was mere moments, I tell you, before the heckling started… James put the slightly ambiguous question “Has global warming increased the toll of natural disasters?” to the panelists, which immediately prompted yelps for clarification from indignant men all around me. “Over what period of time, and what kind of cost?” asked one. (Certain men seem to get very difficult the older they get, have you noticed?) James looked sufficiently rattled – “Can we at least agree that there is man made global warming?” he asked, pleaded. “NO!” came the emphatic answer from a man with wild hair and an even wilder look in his eye, sitting just to my right. Uh oh, I was in the close company of a denialist – this should be fun! “Gosh, I didn’t think this would be so hard!” chuckled James nervously.

And then we were racing straight into the presentations, starting with leading climate scientist Bob Muir-Wood, who talked two to the dozen as he raced through slides. Since 2001 there has been huge hype over “disaster costs” with the media being “whipped into a frenzy”, and predictions of up to 500% more floods, mudslides, hailstorms, droughts, ice storms and wildfires being reported as possibilities of the near future. It’s worth noting that Muir-Wood has close links with the insurance industry, who would clearly benefit from increased premiums. In 2003 the French experienced “la canicule” – a summer of such intense heat (the hottest in 500 years) that thousands died. But then there was a “death deficit” in the following year. Was this because the vulnerable were looked after better or they’d all died already? Muir-Wood used this as an example of how hard it is to read and understand data without looking at the bigger picture. Another example he used is the major investments made in infrastructures over recent years; for instance Japan has thrown “huge amounts of concrete at flood defences” since 1959, when Typhoon Vera, the strongest Japanese storm in recorded history, hit its shores. Consequently the storm would have had a dramatically lower cost if it had happened today. These outlying factors make it very hard to accurately predict or assess statistics. He concluded that there is only a trend for elevated costs (of disasters) if you look at graphs since the 1970s.

Bob Ward, who works for LSE, then took centre stage to defend the IPCC. “As always there is a caveat,” he explained; “is any one event an effect of climate change? It’s so hard to match the attribution, which makes it difficult to map trends.” Behind him a slide detailed how climate change might decrease the chance of frost at night, which prompted some loud chuckles from the denialists in the audience, who as ever, seem confused by the difference between climate and weather. Bob clarified that we must look at the numbers of people affected and we can clearly see that insurance losses have risen since the 1950s which means many more people have been displaced or injured by natural events. A funny little graph proved the point that floods, droughts, storms and earthquakes have become the biggies in terms of human cost. However, there is as yet, insufficient evidence of a firm link with climate change. Naturally, the biggest losses have happened where the greatest number of people and properties have been involved.

And then it was time for the spanner in the works to take to the stand. Roger Pielke is a specialist in analysing how science intersects with decision making from the University of Colorado. “Uncertainty. Get used to it,” he announced. His conclusions came first and seemed to echo those of Ward’s. “Societal factors alone are responsible for increased losses,” he postulated, but emphasised that he advocates decarbonising the economy because 1.5 million people don’t have access to fossil fuels and need to find alternative energy supplies. “This could also deal with the thorny, messy climate change problem.” He then talked us clearly through his immaculate presentation, showing us that according to Excel there is no upward trend for disaster losses between 1900-2001. Yup, his graph appeared to be flatlining alright. And then we came to it: Pielke’s unequivocal evidence that despite the views of experts the IPCC saw fit to publish misleading data in its 2007 report, even alluding to his own agreement to use a problematic graph, which had not been given. “If the data doesn’t support the claim, don’t publish it!” This evinced yet more excited snorts from the denialist next to me, and when I glanced over at Bob Ward he was shifting uncomfortably in his seat. Oooooh, the graphs had been drawn and it was time for blood – sorry I mean questions – from the audience.

A lump appeared, bumping along the velvet curtains behind the stage, clearly beating a hasty retreat and momentarily distracting Randerson. “Are we in disagreement over the vulnerability of planet, or the process of science?” asked someone. Because actually the reason everyone had come to this lecture was to find out how the process of the IPCC could have fallen apart so dramatically. Apart from the denialists of course, and one in particular. “I am from Weather Action,” said the loudly snorting man next to me. “We are long range forecasters, and our evidence shows that CO2 does not drive climate, which has all been made up by carbon traders and fraudulent people.” In fact, according to Piers Corbyn, all extreme events are caused by the sun. All of them folks. Nothing to do with us spunking vast quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. You know, I just don’t get how some humans can be so entirely arrogant, to think that our activities will never affect our fragile planet. I wonder how history will look back on people like Corbyn, who wanted to know if the IPCC could now be scrapped so we can “prepare for ‘real’ disasters?” Pielke categorically declined to engage in a debate “that can be held elsewhere” – i.e. whether climate change is happening (yawn). Muir-Wood reminded Piers that he prophezised chaotic wind storms four years ago. “We’re 85% right!” heckled Corbyn. Ward went further still. “There’s no end to my disagreement with Piers,” he said. “I don’t know where to start.” I got the impression that he’s met Corbyn before. After the debate I took a rubbishy designed printout from Corbyn (Why are spurious campaigning bodies so good at bad graphic design? It’s endemic. Please debate.) My favourite box out reads: CRUSADE AGAINST THE SCIENCE DENIERS! Print out this newssheet and show it to a Global Warmer you know and ask them: “Is all this from solar flares, to the ionosphere, the stratosphere, Scotland, China & the Timor Sea caused by driving cars?” Yup, you’re winning me over with that argument alright. (If you know what he’s on about can you let me know please? Ta.)

Muir-Wood then made a most pertinent point for a social media addict like myself, which was that the data for climate change is not static, and this is the major stumbling block of a one-off report such as that produced in 2007 by the IPCC. New data is being discovered or disproved all the time and the way in which such information is shared on a global level must become more fluid otherwise reports too quickly become outmoded. Of course the internet provides the perfect forum for such an idea, and the organisation of a scientific advisory body such as the IPCC must reflect this.

Someone then raised a query about the amount of money the IPCC receives to do its work, which led to the clarification that the IPCC is run along similar lines to any academic body, with scientists contributing their time and knowledge because they think it’s worthwhile and not for financial gain. And herein lies one of the biggest problems. Whilst folks like IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri must find work elsewhere (for Indian mining conglomerate TATA, which stands to make large sums from “climate doom scenarios”) there will by necessity be a conflict of interest. Our worthy panelists appeared to be in universal agreement that the IPCC needs to be reformed. “But it needs to cost more to do a good job” said Muir-Wood. “The problem is that everything is done on the cheap,” agreed Pielke. Perhaps if some proper cash was spent on collecting and refining climate change data there would be less need to use “grey data” and there would be fewer mishaps of the kind that is now rocking the scientific community. It seems obvious that a lack of resources has led to corner cutting, and as Pielke pointed out there needs to be clear boundaries between producing data and giving political advice. If more money is spent on the IPCC then there will automatically be more accountability, and more trust.

By the end of this whirlwind journey into the minds of climate scientists Ward, Pielke and Muir-Wood, the protagonists seemed to be in agreement that since the 1970s there has definitely been increases in the cost of natural disasters. But a final show of hands from the audience showed that not many people (far less than at the start of the lecture) believed that global warming has increased the toll of natural disasters. I myself was part of the “don’t knows” because although I suspect it to be so, the correlation has clearly never been shown. This final moment highlighted just how much damage the revelations of the past few months have incurred; wherein people have looked at the brouhaha in the media and concluded that all scientists are liars who will happily bend the truth to suit their own means. And yes, it seems some have indeed cobbled together dodgy information, and in doing so have massively set back the most important movement of our lifetimes – just 25% of the population now believes that climate change is a serious issue, which is devastating news when we have so much work to do. If data cannot be proved then it clearly shouldn’t be used. What were those scientists thinking?

But, remember this – as Bob Ward surmised (and I’m paraphrasing here, obviously he didn’t say the t-word and all other poor language is entirely my own). “Are you willing to take the risk that climate change is all a load of old twaddle? No, we don’t know how much it will affect us or when, but affect us it will. If we do nothing we risk suffering the most serious consequences, and they ain’t pretty my friends.” Yes, human beings (even scientists) are fallible. The IPCC has made mistakes. Hopefully some important lessons have been learnt about how data is collected and presented, and what it might cost to do a good job. But we mustn’t let a tiny set-back stop us from striving for a different world, one where the battle against climate change encompasses so much more than just the environment. It’s about making the world a better place for all, and that means massive changes in how humans live.
valentines

Image courtesy of Tatty Devine- with thanks.

It’s official. We have less than a week to go until Valentine’s Day, story that especially memorable date that falls on the same day each year – contrary to the protestations of many men nationwide – 14th February. “So what special plans have you made for Sunday?” I hear echoing around our office. What indeed are you supposed to plan, sickness you might ask? Well the modern answer is not an awful lot really. In days of old Valentine’s Day was an extra excuse to spoil a loved one rotten, now I fear this ‘celebration of love’ has been exploited and blown out of context – primarily by beneficiaries of the holiday industries – such as the major card manufacturers and chocolatiers (not to mention any names). As you can tell I’m a bit cynical about Valentine’s Day as I don’t whole-heartedly (see what I did there?) like the thought of a specific day where my boyfriend can tell me he loves me, as surely that’s what lovers are supposed to do all year round?!

For those who disagree with me (everyone, I’m sure), and who would like to take this upcoming opportunity that Valentine’s awards them to make a grand gesture (whether it be to shower their loved one with gifts, whisk them away on a romantic getaway or maybe even pop a very special question) – well this gift guide won’t be for you. Instead we’re doing a collective alternative gift-guide seeking out only the most heartfelt gifts, with the emphasis on hand-made love tokens that don’t cost the earth. So if you’d like to get handy with the sugar paper and scissors, our very own Art Editor Valerie, has some great suggestions to get you cutting and sticking to the theme of love.

With several websites promoting the make-do-and-mend approach there are many step by step guides to making necklaces for that special lady in your life, with the best being: a bottle-top necklace, and for the more adventurous, why not try your hand at a necklace, earrings and matching bracelet!

Alternatively if you’d like to buy something readymade there are a plethora of original and amazing hand-made gifts available on Etsy.com, or for the true eco champions among us, why not invest in some beautiful organic flowers as suggested by our Earth Editor Zofia – nothing says ‘I love you’ quite like organic flowers, I’m sure you’ll agree!

If you’re still at a loss after all of our helpful hints, then I’ve put together a top three in terms of non-bank-breaking jewellery, especially for you.

Tatty Devine ‘Lolly Necklace’, £29.00.

Untitled3

Lady Luck Rules OK ‘Twilight Toadstools Costume Pendant’, £16.00.

Untitled1

Me + Zena ‘Giant Broken Heart Necklace’, now reduced to £17.60.

Untitled2

Lastly for those lovely singletons out there why not take our Music Editor Andy’s advice and enter our comp:  Yes Yes Yes are offering the chance to indulge your saucy side and dress up as a burlesque dancer, fetishist or just put on your Sunday best and join them for an evening of Ambient Acts, Vintage Erotica and DJ’s. Who knows, you might meet the person of your dreams!!

Tags:

, , , , , , , , ,

Similar Posts:

Leave a Reply