Use of GYO polls

[Flummery]

I'm just posting this because I don't like the way the GYO poll featured on page 9 of the March issue has been used.

If you cast your mind back, it's the one about climate change, and if we have noticed the effect of altered seasons on our plots.
64.3% said no.
There were 3 comments published and all were from people who had said yes. This distorts what people had found.

I am not a climate change sceptic. I do think that human activity is altering the planets climate. In some places this results in warming - ice-cap melting for instance. Here, where we get the effects of the gulf stream and other climatological effects, I think we are seeing greater extremes - this winter has been significantly colder and the hard frosts are longer lasting and more frequent than for many years. Yet last summer we here in the North East had no rain for nearly 2 months.

The questions seemed to me too simplistic - are you planting out earlier? A few were. The majority of us weren't.

I don't feel inclined to take part in any more of these polls. I don't feel they ask serious questions in serious ways and I certainly think the answers are then skewed by the use of quotations from the thread.

There, I've said me bit. Please take us more seriously in future.

[Emma Ward]

Hello Flummery,

Thank you very much for getting in touch with your feedback. I'm sorry to hear you're unhappy with the way the polls are presented and the depth of our questions. This is largely down to space on the page and I apologise if you are disappointed.

I understand that climate change is a complex subject to discuss, but we lack the room to go into greater detail - which is why our questions are fairly simple.

If you have any suggestions on topics/questions that would be more engaging, I would happily receive them

Thanks again

Emma

[Hazel at the Hill]

This is largely down to space on the page and I apologise if you are disappointed.

I think that Flum's point is about balance - if you only have room to publish three quotes, that's fine, but could you not make those published representative of the overall view?

In this case, two comments supporting 'no' and one for 'yes' would have been a rather more accurate reflection of our views.

[Flummery]

Hazel has understood my point. If there isn't enough room to go into a subject as complex as climate change then you do us and it an injustice by condensing it so that your article doesn't actually say what the poll found.

[organic]

Agreed.
Taking a poll where 64% said "no" and then only publishing "yes" comments is really quite bad. As has been said, 2 comments saying "no" and one saying "yes" would have been fine, especially as slightly over two thirds of those polled actually said "no".

I think the fact that the official response has been to do with lack of depth, disappointment and asking for ways to be more engaging shows a chronic missing of the point.

The complaint was about distortion of the poll and questions that were problematically simplistic. You can ask more useful questions, have a very brief writeup; but no matter what you ask, accurately representing the views expressed when selecting some to go in the magazine would be basic common courtesy, let alone common sense.

While I do believe we affect the environment, quite apart from Flummery I think the climate is way beyond our influence. I believe the cold winter we've had following several much milder ones is nothing more than weather. For years I've suspected the "warming" was a complete fabrication and that's only been confirmed by all that "climategate" rubbish. All that said... if the poll had said "yes" rather than "no" - I still believe the comments chosen should accurately reflect the balance of views - even though I'd have disagreed with the majority.

Otherwise, what's the point? It couldn't possibly be canvassing for input so you can "cherry pick" views to back up the message you want to portray could it? No, of course not. Warmists don't "cherry pick" anything do they? Nooo. Absolutely not. Perish the thought.

[Madasafish]

. Warmists don't "cherry pick" anything do they? Nooo. Absolutely not. Perish the thought.

If warmists don't toe the party line, they get no funding.

But if they do toe the party line, the Government funds them so they can petition the Government to act on Global Warming.

..
:-(

[OllieMartin]

. Warmists don't "cherry pick" anything do they? Nooo. Absolutely not. Perish the thought.

If warmists don't toe the party line, they get no funding.

But if they do toe the party line, the Government funds them so they can petition the Government to act on Global Warming.

..
:-(

There's no money to be made by saying "everything's fine".

The primary cause of global warming isn't CO2, factories, people leaving the heating on, congestion, excessive bovine flactulence. It's population overcrowding. FACT.
The problem is, you can tell people that they need to separate their glass from the rest of their rubbish, you can tell them to wash their clothes at 40 degrees, you can tell them to get the bus, but you can't tell people to stop having kids!

Join my petition to save the planet by not having children!

[sarraceniac]

Join my petition to save the planet by not having children!

Can't we execute a few of those already here OM? We needn't shoot them because that would produce greenhouse gases. But if you send a few of them round here I'll get my neighbours to strangle them, especially if they belong to my neighbours.

[Pies]

.... but you can't tell people to stop having kids!

They do in China

[organic]

Ah, China! That great model on how to treat people with respect and dignity.

I'm unconvinced on the overpopulation front too... it's the way in which the population treats the planet that's the problem, not its size.

[SarzWix]

Think this may be wandering a little off-topic here...

[organic]

Think you've got a point there.
I'll step out now though, nothing really to add. Apologies for my part in the drift.

[rogesse]

Back on topic - Why treat such a theme so flippantly. If you do not have the where with all to pose the question seriously and then cope with the answers without being trivial- why enter the debate. I found your response to Flummery a tad on the patronizing!

[weekendwellies]

Just catching up on this and I totally agree with Flummery.
In fact, much as I love the forum, I am losing interest in the magazine completely.
I have been very disappointed with the last handful of issues.
I know that it has been winter but still, I expect a decent magazine even through the winter.
I may in fact go so far as to stop my sub and just pick up a mag from the shops 2-4 times a year.

[Paulottie]

I agree with you Flummery.

I'd like to pick up on the reply and echo the above two comments too. It seems recently that the magazine has plenty enough space to promote products but then no articles of any gravitas. I am struggling to keep interest in the lowest common denominator;boring; repetitive, beginners level lightweight reading on offer.

This forum is a great resource, and while I have supported the mag from the beginning partly for that reason. I feel that I am paying monthly for my intelligence to be insulted.

We have some serious in depth veg growing knowledge but really the selected comments that are printed make me cringe. It doesn't appear that anyone from the mag actually reads or is involved with this forum (except Mr Wagland for a while last year)

It is a shame that this excellent resource is so flippantly underused by them.

So come on the editorial team..... how about some serious text for the knowledgeable audience that you have.

I am sure I'll be black balled for these free thinking comments so goodbye to you all