Good morning... Great news, everybody, Amanda Baillieu has a new editorial in BD, "the architect's website" read | Also, BD tries to show you that readers are "split" on climate change. read
Good morning... Great news, everybody, Amanda Baillieu, head honcho of the UK's Building Design, has a new editorial in BD, "the architect's website" read. Also, BD tries to show you that readers are "split" on climate change. read
But let's review this brief history. As you saw here on Archinect, the day before Ms Baillieu's first "skeptical" editorial appeared in BD, she said: "Basically believing in man made climate change is a bit like hoping that fairies live at the bottom of the garden." In addition, to a response that brought up polar bear numbers, she said: "Polar Bear International would say that wouldn't they?" Despite seeming to ridicule people who actually seem interested in sincerely debating, she also (painfully) reminds us now (again) that the debate "isn't over".
More confusing yet, is the fact that, after she questions the science, her editorial spins around and seems to imply that the climate IS changing: "should we be adapting to climate change and using our energies and money in better preparing for the impact of events such as flooding and drought?" (huh?)
Well, ultimately, it all makes sense. Ms Baillieu, in the end, asks: "Who is going to pay?" Right. It's either them (or them; or them...) OR... us.
Oh the pain of a post-mortem empire.
Previously on this site...
7 Comments
Including quotes from architects and related organization's who are ostensibly on both sides of the debate is in my mind an attempt to intentional avoid the real point.
Architects are not the ones who know the science. where is the quotes or links to actual science questioning the human driven climate change "agenda"???
BD and Amanda simply claiming the science is in question does not the case make...
the global warming denier’s version of pascal’s wager?
it seems like she’s mostly hedging her bets – she can claim that global warming doesn’t exist, or the debate isn’t over, appeasing architects that think science is bogus.
then she can make statements like, there is no argument natural resources such as water need to be conserved and low-energy buildings make sense, appeasing ‘green’ architects and manufacturers that pay for her job.
scientists involved in genuine research in this field have been refused platforms
including asinine statements like this only further erodes her waning credibility
‘scientists’ like pilmer aren’t doing genuine research – they’re using lies and debunked theories to save their mines and corporate-polluting backers.
I actually thought that's exactly what a journalist's job is. Perhaps the morphing of journalists into people who work in media is at the root of the problem with our current ability to debate.
Thanks for sticking to this, Javier.
"Save the world, kill YOURSELF"
How much do you really believe??
bd must be loving the additional traffic that she's generating. irresponsible provocation = marketing. works for anne coulter!
See, that's what I'm saying, too. This is trolling, plain and simple. The intent is to generate attention, but the unintended side effect is crystallize opposition, which is kind of a good thing.
Just want to quickly address this because I think there is both an element of myth and an element of truth to what Steven and 765 are saying. Yes, there is a truth to the accusation that the intent here is merely to provoke for attention's sake. Amanda Baillieu uses phrases like 'throwing a piranha in the tank' to allude to the fact that she just likes to drum up controversy and she loves the added screen views. She herself thanks Architect's Journal for covering this.
However, here is the issue. BD still covers stories with a patina of seriousness, like Grimshaw's new project for the Heathrow expansion. Now, I ask you if you think they can cover these stories with objectivity given the position that the editor has. Normally one would take their coverage of Grimshaw at face value. Now, they're focus on what Greenpeace and other organizations say in opposition to Grimshaw strikes me as gotcha journalism. A bit of a deliberate attempt to tarnish firms that try to carry a green banner? I think we need to think seriously about this.
Finally, one could just ignore this in much the same way that Lou Dobbs could have been "ignored" and left to spew his vitriol. But in the end, I think it was important to expose his work as a sham. There are parallels.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.