Hamster power

Amidst a frantic band of jumping and shouting little kids, a science teacher attempts to explain the concept of conservation of energy to an 8-year old. Meanwhile, another bunch of children is jumping up down, waving their hands in the air, to make a lightning bolt strike a tree. Designed to be yet another ‘interactive’ science exposition, the energy gallery in the science museum subjects a hapless visitor to a torrent of acoustic abuse and even electric shock therapy.

Indeed, for adults, the energy gallery may not be quite what they had in mind for an enjoyable, quiet afternoon out. However, by keeping in mind that it is aimed at children of about seven to fourteen years old, I think the gallery succeeds quite well in conveying some of the key issues concerning energy and its associated problems.

With a minimum of text and an overload of audio-visual-sensual effects, it is made clear that it will be very hard to change our current pattern of energy consumption. Visitors can have a try at energy management by pretending to be minister in a computer simulation. The kids are asked if they would process there hamster into electrical energy to power the television, illustrating rather well that tough choices must be made.

Although all-in-all a good initiative, it is deplorable that virtually no mention is made of the relationship between fossil fuels and climate change, which might raise questions considering that BP and BASF were the main sponsors of the gallery. Definitely worthwhile visiting with your hyperactive little cousin!

Submitted by Cornelis Plet

Climate Change - comment & win

In class this week, I gave a print out of this piece on "Climate Porn". The idea was going to be to get you to summarise the reasons why emphasising risks of climate change is a bad thing, as well as considering reasons for sensationalism. We didn't have time for this, but I thought we could discuss it here.

So, press on the yellow "comments" link at the end of the post and give your reasons for and against sensationalism in risk reporting. You might like to read the article linked to above (and the comments - it's a blog entry) but you don't have to.

As incentive, before next week's class I'll write down the name of all the students who comment, and draw one at random to get a (chocolate based) prize. If there are lots of comments, I might draw out a few names (I'll see if the holiday spirit catches me). If you put more than one comment, you will be entered twice, so it's worth checking back to debate your points further.

The picture is meant to be a "baked" person (from climate change. Sorry, bad link...).

news values climate change

The news media is often accused of sensationalism, especially around science issues. A really interesting example of this recently was the IPPR report accusing the media of "climate porn".

But if sensationalism is all the consequence of news values, are the media excused? I think climate change is an interesting case study in this. The IPPR say the sensationalism over climate change is dangerous because the public think it's too late to do anything. But then maybe we need things exaggerated to scare us into small changes. And it's not as if scientific opinion is especially settled over how close we are to environmental armageddon.

Is there a place for sensationalism? If so where? Warning: one of the press release assignments last year was marked down quite severely for being "too sensationalist" (not by me, but you have been warned).

p.s. apologies about the WebCT problems. We've been assured that students just need to advice here and here, and if there are still problems contact IS.