Climate Change Censorship
A lot has been written about the Listener’s dumping of “Ecologic” columnist Dave Hansford and whether it was linked to a complaint by Bryan Leyland – a prominent sceptic.
John Drinnan covers it in the Herald.
But Listener editor Pamela Stirling is insisting that the two events are unconnected and that she is losing a staffer because of budget cuts.
Wellington freelance journalist Dave Hansford has been the ecological columnist since November.
He has had differences of opinion with Stirling during much of that time and on occasion was asked to changed the tone of the column.
Hansford would not be the only staffer who has had differences of opinion with the Editor.
Stirling says Hansford was only ever hired as a short-term position for two months and the column was now being written by a staffer.
But it’s clear that Stirling’s approach to the eco-column – like her approach to the Listener – has been a lot more right of centre than the line of the old days.
Stirling took over in 2004 and she says that for a long time the Listener had been the house journal of the Alliance Party.
Stirling says the magazine is more centrist and allows everyone to express a view.
It was indeed the Alliance house journal. not that I had a problem with that – if enough people want to buy the Listener as a left wing magazine, good on them. And if enough want to buy it as a centrist magazine also good on them.
Poneke blogs on the issue also. Likewise Russell Brown. And the issue was first raised on the very good Hot Topic blog.
Meanwhile in Australia they have the opposite issue with Earth Day. The Melbourne Age is known to be a very left wing paper. I doubt more than 5% of their journalists vote Liberal/National. But even they have protested about the editor forcing them to write supportive material for Earth Day. Read this story in The Australian:
In a statement accompanying the resolution, staff said the Earth Hour partnership placed basic journalistic principles in jeopardy: “Reporters were pressured not to write negative stories and story topics followed a schedule drafted by Earth Hour organisers.”
Andrew Bolt points out:
In a statement of protest last week, 235 Age journalists confirmed that their coverage of last month’s Earth Hour had been, in effect, propaganda.
“Reporters were pressured not to write ‘negative’ stories and story topics followed a schedule drafted by Earth Hour organisers,” they said.
That confession came after the ABC’s Media Watch released an embarrassing email sent by the green group WWF to Age editor-in-chief Andrew Jaspan under the creepy header Re: Any last requests?.
In it, WWF staffer Fiona Poletti replied she indeed had more requests, and told Jaspan to run three more puff pieces for Earth Hour, a stunt in which readers were told to help save the planet from global warming by turning off lights for an hour.
Here’s one: “We would love the fashion story to get a good run. This has been given to Orietta and is about the fashion industry’s unified support for Earth Hour.”
WWF ordered, Jaspan obeyed. The Age dutifully ran that story, under the headline: “Fashionistas no dummies when it comes to be switching off.”
WWF’s request for a second story on businesses backing Earth Hour? Also obeyed. On cities around the world joining in? Obeyed. In each case Jaspan had journalists writing, albeit unwittingly, to a green group’s script.
Bolt also observes:
The joke is most Age journalists are so green they don’t need to be pushed to preach this gospel. But their bosses’ prodding changes everything.
What a reporter may freely write as news becomes propaganda if he or she is not free to report all the relevant facts. So all Age journalists writing about Earth Hour, or global warming, must for now be considered propagandists.
Too harsh? Then consider: after all that pushing of the green line by Age bosses, which staff writer would dare write that global warming in fact may have stalled, with oceans cooling and the planet not heating since 1998? Indeed, none has.
Which Age staffer would dare write that Earth Hour actually saved so little in greenhouse gases that just eight cars will make good those emissions in a year? Again, none has.
And finally Bolt uses his own situation as an example of how editorial independence should be preserved:
Responsible newspapers at least try to ensure their staff know they are still free to dissent and report inconvenient truths, which is why I’m still here, writing as I do, even after our boss Rupert Murdoch last year said it was time to “give the planet the benefit of the doubt” with global warming.
Yep, that is how it should be.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:02 am
What we seeing is a cult like behaviour around climate change. From Government Ministers down anyone who dares to ask questions or doesnt sign up 100% is labelled a “denier”
And we all know the origins of that label.
This is developing in to a hate speech issue with the believers determined to shut down any opposition in any way possible
The many vested interests are getting desparate that all the science isnt fallen into line with their agenda. Some believers are questioning the science.
We can expect an acceleration of the hate speech against those of us yet to be convinced as governments and business seek to raid our hip pockets.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Known to whom? Bolt? You’ve got to be kidding right? Who’s not to the left of Bolt? Who other than Bolt says the Age is left-wing? I think your perspicacity is diminished by distance and a narrow lens. You might also point out that Bolt writes for the rival News Ltd paper and that there’s a far more significant dispute between the editor and the almost the entire journalistic staff.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:24 am
There may very well be a measure of truth in the story, and, if so, it’s sad that one of Australia’s best respected and most authoritative papers [except, no doubt, in the crazed minds of the mad right] should stoop to this.
I am not sure that I’d promote Bolt as an authority on media bias, though. For one thing, people on the extreme ends of the political spectrum such as Bolt do have a tendency to exaggerate modest bias on the other side of the spectrum, whilst ignoring their own. Still, I guess that’s why he’s still at the Herald Sun!
PS Herald Sun? Let’s see, who’s their biggest competitor. Wee conflict of interest here?
PPS Funny to see Bolt relying on Media Watch, with whom his own history is not entirely happy?
April 18th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Yep, right on, Farrar, the censorship of global warming skeptics is FAR worse than any censorship that possibly exists the other way. In fact, I think its a bloody wonder that any case at all has been able to be made by anyone along those lines……..
April 18th, 2008 at 11:28 am
If Paul W does not think the Age is left wing, then there are no left wing papers anywhere in the world.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Stirling says the magazine is more centrist . . .
No doubt Finlay ‘John Key is the Fuhrer’ McDonald also thought his magazine was centrist and expressing all viewpoints. Funny how the word ‘centrist’ has now come to mean wildly biased and partisan.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:31 am
gd, members of the NZ CSC often write to employers to get people dismissed who argue against their denialist doctrine – hardly pro free speech.
“And we all know the origins of that label.”
I assume that you’re insinuating that it’s a reference to Holocaust deniers. Well, if it makes you happy to go through life imagining that the term is used to likening AGW deniers to Holocaust deniers have fun doing so, but in my case at least I use the term “AGW deniers” because I see their condition as similar to that of people who are in denial about having an addiction problem, in their case it’s carbon.
Like other addicts AGW deniers work hard convincing themselves that the rest of the world is out to get them and to destroy them by taking their precious away from them. If I was aiming to be pejorative I’d use “crank” as Gareth at HT does, but I don’t because I find it too … pejorative.
However, I’m an accommodating fellow so, if it makes you happy, I’ll abandon the term “denier” and to emphasis the addiction issue I’ll instead liken them to a well known addict driven mad by his addiction and start referring to them as “Gollum’s”
April 18th, 2008 at 11:32 am
What a fantastically analytical come-back David. Perhaps you’ll reference specific articles or other criticism in support of your claim?
April 18th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Well, Danyl, you could get the impression from the O’Herald that a double income household pulling down close to $100K a year is having problems “making ends meet” because they can’t service telephone number mortgages on over-valued property in fashionable inner-city suburbs.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Not that Wikipedia is beyond dispute, but just to show how ridicolous Paul W is being in suggesting no one other than Bolt thinks the Age is left wing, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_Age#Politics
April 18th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
The Age along with the Sydney Morning Herald is left-wing, both Fairfax`Papers.
Typically, the Murdoch owned papers might be termed right-wing.
It’s their gap in the market.
Australia’s media market place is big enogh for there typically to be a left-wing Fairfax `Paper and a right-wing Murdoch paper to serve the readers in each city/ state.
Now , the Australian and the SMH/ Age are respected titles, but if you push an ideological barrow too far, you will lose credibility and that is what happened with the Age. I am sure it has lost a fair bit, much to the delight of the Murdoch and Packer opposition.
Even the ABC as a rival would also take delight even though the ABC and Fairfax might have more in common ideologically.
Such a story on Media Watch would also be riased as an example by the state owned channel about how it exposes the left too, when it receives complaints of bias from the right.
New Zealand’s markets tend to be so small each city had its own monopolist paper so be it the DomPost or the Herald, they might not become too ideological because it will piss off a section of their readers.
The problem here stems from the Sunday markets.
We have two left-leanings Fairfax Sundays who backed Liarbour in 2005 and a centrist HOS which was neutral in 2005. None of the Sundays backed National, leaving a large constituency of readers unrepresented.
But I digress and back to the issue of Earth Hour.
Indeed, the ABC with its Media Watch programme also took the Age to task over its coverage of Earth Hour, which was interesting as the ABC, and Media Watch especially, is traditionally associated for being on the left politically.
This was covered at http://www.nominister.blogspot.com the other day.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I hate the Age. It’s pretty shocking. And I’m not at all surprised at the showdown at the Listener . She’s been taking the magazine downhill for a long while, and by downhill, I mean to hell.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I am starting to see Climate Change Believers like 911 Truthers
Climate Change Believers deal in minutiae such as small parts of the West Antarctic peninsula have experienced an increase in glacial ice flow when faced the with the fact that the world hasn’t warmed for a decade
Like 911 Truthers deal in minutiae about the structural strength of the WTC7 when faced with the big picture that Al-Qaeda had the capability, the desire, had tried before and celebrated 9/11.
Come to think of it maybe the 911 Truthers have a slightly better case and we should start referring to Climate Change Believers as Climate Change Truthers
April 18th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
No David, wikipedia’s a reasonable source of some information and I don’t strongly object to what it says – this however was not what you said ; you’ve exagerated the criticism precisely as Bolt does (and he’s credible why?) because either (a) you don’t know any better or (b) it suits your story. If you had genuine knowledge or experience you’d have a more nuanced view but as usual, you paint in black and white and use a thick brush… might have something to do with your readership?
Fairfax are generally mroe centrist that News’s Australian but that doesn’t make it “very left”. Can you back up your claim of “very” left-wing bias based on a story/ies or are you going to rely on the Hicks and Henderson stories cited in Wiki (by the way, Henderson, who runs the Sydney Institute – a very conservative think-tank – and Miranda Devine write for the SMH which makes FairFacts claim a little overstated too).
April 18th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Andrew W always follow the money if you want to find the real motivation
Governments The ability to raise taxes and label those who complain as evil destroyers of the planet
OUr own NZX Like other bourses see a chance to clip the ticket thru a carbon trading scheme One of the greatest smoke and mirrors tricks of all times Right up with the snake oil salesmen
Corporates. Jump on the band wagon to self promote whilst increasing profits by raising prices on the basis that ‘Its good for you”
heh Im the biggest fan of business there is and so part of me says Go for it
But another part has a moral and ethical problem with the duplicity.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
emmess, I’m more inclined to draw the comparison between 9/11 conspiracy theorists and IPCC conspiracy theorists, both groups seem convinced it’s all a big “hoax” orchestrated by government agents or agencys, with each claimed conspiracy involving hundreds or thousands of people in the know, and based on some nebulous plan to subvert society.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Just look at a graph of say, the last hundred years and see which way it goes emmess
April 18th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Andrew W: Exactly.
GD: Does your ‘follow the money’ advice extend to examination of the funding of the Climate Science Coalition, as undertaken at length by Gareth Renowden at Hot Topic, or is this beneath examination and of no importance in establishing their motivation?
MrHappy
April 18th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
AGW is baloney – pure and simple. The climate is big enough and ugly enough to take care of itself and doesn’t need a bunch of AGW-believers to look after it.
The climate has changed over the ages (and always will change in the future) according to its natural cycles driven by the sun, with intermittent prods from volcanoes and other perfectly natural events.
Luckily for us the climate is presently benign with temperatures ranging from 0- 40 degrees or so in the habitable regions. So if it goes up or down a fraction of a degree that’s hardly cause to panic.
The only time the climate really gets inhospitable is when it periodically slips into an ice age. (There has never been (or will be) a hot age!) If anything, that’s worth planning for, but even then there will be plenty of warning.
There are far more real and immediate problems to be concerned about.
The sooner this AGW hoax is finally exposed the better. That day is coming. And how we’ll laugh then…
April 18th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Funny how the word ‘centrist’ has now come to mean wildly biased and partisan.
Perspective Danyl. You think they are biased and partisan, because you think you have the centrist views. Maybe you just don’t like hearing a differing opinion from your own….
April 18th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Thank you for illustrating my point AGW-HAHAHAHA…
April 18th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Paul originally said:
“Who other than Bolt says the Age is left-wing?”
He has now conceded that the Age being a left-wing newspaper is not the opinion of one person, but something which no-one seriously doubts. So he tries to change the topic from his outrageous denial of the Age being left-wing to the issue of demanding examples of bias which is different.
I have no problem with left wing media such as The Listener (former) and The Age. You can have a viewpoint and not be biased. You can also have a viewpoint and be biased. The New York Times is a great example of that.
I am pleased Paul W now accepts the Age is left wing. Perhaps he could now comment on whether he supports the journalists in their complaint about the Editor – that his advocacy for Earth Day has undermined the paper’s editorial independence.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
David originally said “the Age is very left wing”, he now says it’s left wing and that I agree.
I don’t. I said I don’t strongly object to what wiki says and then said it’s a pretty centrist paper/media stable (recall the Devine and Henderson examples). It’s certainly left of the Tele and of the Sun Herald but then they’re pretty right.
I don’t accept your point David, neither do I accept Bolt’s view – Bolt’s wiki says he’s a climate sceptic too perhaps that’s why he’s keen to dismiss alternative perspectives as being biased? Show me a story that’s got a “very left” bias? You can’t ’cause you’ve not got any first hand knowledge which is why you rely on Bolt but he’s simply not credible.
I’m pleased David now accepts that the the Age is a pretty run-of-the-mill centrist metro-daily.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
“Perhaps he could now comment on whether he supports the journalists in their complaint about the Editor”
DPF: Well I for one support their complaint. My question to you is do you support the many journalists who complained about being silenced by John Key?
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1369
[DPF: Roger does not understand a key difference. Not a single reporter has complained about being silenced by John Key. They have complained about a clarification which was accepted by the editor and actual reporter who did the story.]
April 18th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Mr Happy Apologies I ommitted the scientists funded by both side of the arguement
Im neither a believer or a denier at this point What I am is very suspicious that my hip pocket is about to be raided by some sons of bitches telling my lies in the process.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
“David originally said “the Age is very left wing”, he now says it’s left wing and that I agree.”
I think I can explain that. You see, when a “political compass” survey of NZ bloggers was carried out, it was found that DPF is the most extreme right-wing blogger in NZ – so any person or organisation that’s anywhere near center, is to him “very far left”. Hope that helps.
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2003/11/graphing-nz-blogosphere.html
[DPF: Poor old Roger can only read one dimension on a two dimension graph. I am also shown as more non-authoritarian than around 75% of bloggers. And of course Roger avoids the issue of the Editor of the Age turning his newspaper into a cheerleader for Earth Day - perhaps he could state his opinion on that]
April 18th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Didn’t HAHA have a different argument yesterday about CO2 not mattering cos theres not much of it? http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/04/unitended_consequences.html#comments
Then ‘e just disappeared! Troll? no way
April 18th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
>>emmess, I’m more inclined to draw the comparison between 9/11 conspiracy theorists and IPCC conspiracy theorists, both groups seem convinced it’s all a big “hoax” orchestrated by government agents or agencys, with each claimed conspiracy involving hundreds or thousands of people in the know, and based on some nebulous plan to subvert society.
On a superficial level you are correct and that is the prevailing viewpoint
On the contrary, the accusations of conspiracy are aimed at big business and friendly governments, thats also where the similarity to the 911 Truthers as with most conspiracies lie
Most climate change skeptics don’t see it as a hoax or a conspiracy even if they use those words, they are just counter-insults.
Skeptics see it just as a theory that as a that has got out of control as government, activists and media have got too wound up in their own propaganda, and have too much credibility invested in theory by backing down even one inch. An conspiracy theory involves some accusations of malign intent, only one side accuses the other of that (in most cases) and it isn’t the skeptics
April 18th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
“An conspiracy theory involves some accusations of malign intent, only one side accuses the other of that (in most cases) and it isn’t the skeptics”
Ahh, sorry emmess, the claimed “malign intent” that those who accept AGW is all over the net: it’s all a “hoax” to increase the power of government and move us further towards socialism.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
The Deniers
By David Forsmark
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, April 17, 2008
The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud — and Those Who Are Too Fearful to Do So
By Lawrence Solomon
Richard Vigilante Books, $27.95, 239 pp.
“Ozone Man,” said Al Gore recently on 60 Minutes referring to the folks who doubt his global warming scenario and arguing that they are part of a “tiny, tiny minority now.” “They’re almost like the ones who believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the earth is flat. That demeans them a little bit.”
Gore went on, condescendingly, “But it’s not that far off …”
Gee, Al, thanks for not trying to be too demeaning!
In Lawrence Solomon’s new book — The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud — and Those Who Are Too Fearful to Do So — the environmental columnist for Canada’s National Post lists a few of the “kooks” who haven’t attained Al Gore’s exalted level of scientific knowledge:
# Dr. Antonino Zichichi, a former president of the European Physical Society who discovered nuclear antimatter and is one of the world’s foremost physicists. He calls global warming projection models “incoherent and invalid.”
# Dr. Christopher Landsea, the past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones. Says he: “There are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.” Prof. Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s most eminent physicists. He asserts the models used to justify global warming alarmism are “full of fudge factors” and “do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.”
# Prof. Paul Reiter, chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute. He notes, “no major scientist with any long record in this field” accepts Gore’s claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
# Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, a world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in historical climate research. He says the U.N. “based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.”
But what would they know, anyway!
Solomon was a member in good standing of the vast left-wing environmental conspiracy when he began a series of columns on prominent scientists who doubt or deny human influence in global climate change.
A founder of the Energy Probe Research Foundation, Solomon has focused on halting the growth of nuclear power and preserving the rainforest. “When I began,” Solomon writes, “I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.”
Instead, like Gen. Lew Wallace — who set out to disprove the existence of Jesus Christ, and ended up writing Ben Hur — Solomon was rocked to his core by what he discovered.
The first “denier” Solomon profiles relates the story of the Incredible Disappearing Hockey Stick and is a perfect example of how Gore’s “consensus” was formed.
A few years ago, Dr. Michael Mann of the University of Massachusetts devised a graph known as “the Hockey Stick.” It soon became, in Solomon’s words, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “poster child in the global warming debate.”
Mann’s graph showed a steady decline in world temperature throughout the 1800s, then a steep spike throughout the 20th century — coinciding, it was implied, with industrialization. This was evidence that human activity caused global warming.
The Hockey Stick, the headlines screamed, proved that the 1900s were the warmest century in world history. We were all about to fry.
But a Canadian mining engineer named Stephen McIntyre noticed that Mann had left out the great warming cycle of the Middle Ages. He created enough of a fuss that the U.S. Congress called on Dr. Edward Wegman, one of the world’s leading statisticians, to investigate.
In short order, Wegman so thoroughly demolished the Hockey Stick that it disappeared from the IPCC’s publications. But it had already scored its goal — the myth that the 1900s were the warmest century persists to this day.
So why would so many scientists jump on the bandwagon? That’s where the money is, Solomon reports. While Gore and the “consensus” accuse anyone who raises objections to their hysteria, the real money is in government grants.
But it’s more insidious than that. While peer review failed in the Hockey Stick case, peer ostracization rarely misses. As Solomon notes, calling the doubters “deniers” is a deliberate attempt to lump those who are not on the global warming bandwagon with Holocaust deniers. Ironically, it is those who bandy the “denier” term about who enforce a fascistic confomity.
In a late chapter of the book called Some Inconvenient Persons, Solomon tells the stories of those who defy the orthodoxy of global warming. Among the first is a man whom Gore thought of as his mentor and to whom he refers to incessantly in Earth in the Balance.
Dr. Robert Revelle pioneered the notion that increased carbon in the atmosphere might lead to increased CO2 and, possibly, some global warming. But Revelle was fairly sanguine about what would happen if that were true, unlike Gore, one of his Harvard students.
Three months before he died of a heart attack, Revelle co-authored an article called What to do About Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap, which urged caution in any so-called solutions to global warming — particularly any that could be “economically devastating.”
In the vice presidential debate a year later, Gore was called out on the difference between his outlook and that of the man he claimed as mentor. Gore simply replied Revelle must have become senile before his death. Nice.
While Solomon sarcastically eviscerates Gore and his claims of the coming catastrophe wrought by global warming, he ends the book by refuting the position espoused by presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain (though he does not name him). Solomon summarizes McCain’s view as the “better safe than sorry fallacy,” which might be the most dangerous stance of all.
Solomon writes he personally respects the opinions of the pro-global warming scientists and is open to the idea that they might be right, but he is adamant in attacking this bit of political pablum.
McCain ‘s argument — which I heard him expound to a huge crowd in Clawson, Michigan — goes like this: Even if global warming isn’t man-made, what’s the harm of pursuing green technology? We will create new jobs and leave our children a cleaner world.
Responding to this insidious happy-talk takes knowledge of both science and economics, putting it above the heads of American presidential candidates.
So here’s a formulation that should be simple enough for even them: Why bring on certain economic disaster in order to prevent an unproven and unlikely apocalypse?
Solomon rips into the Kyoto treaty, saying it is “not an insurance policy, it is the single greatest threat to the environment, because it makes carbon into currency.”
Among the unintended consequences of the Kyoto madness that Solomon lists are the incentives to cut down old growth forests, starvation in poor countries with a rise in food prices as biofuels take up agricultural lands and the resurgence of huge hydroelectric dams as coal become politically incorrect.
The Deniers is a lively, and concisely written book, but it’s not one the average layman is likely to read straight through without interruption. It’s best consumed a chapter at a time.
As Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen did in Embryo, Solomon takes every aspect of global warming theory and systematically presents a scientific argument to the contrary.
Solomon says the point of The Deniers is not to debunk global warming, ut to prove that the science is “not settled,” and to defend those who pursue true scientific inquiry in the face of political pressure.
Perhaps.
But as Solomon points out, the scientific credentials of his “deniers” far outstrip those of their critics in the vast majority of his cases.Their case is also bolstered by the fact that they are willing to stand up for their positions in the face of overwhelming political and financial pressure.
Most enviro-weenies with whom you’re apt to argue trumpet Al Gore’s “consensus” and go straight to name-calling. While The Deniers answers that larger point very well, it is also a handy reference for those who try to argue specific science, as it is logically laid out and puts real science conveniently at your fingertips.
For the carbon-ophobic Left, this is one inconvenient book.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
PaulW: “I’m pleased David now accepts that the the Age is a pretty run-of-the-mill centrist metro-daily.”
Paul, do you mean the Age is run-of-the-mill in terms of quality? IMHO it’s a cut above run-of-the-mill. But if you mean run-of-the-mill in terms of being fairly centrist, if a little left-leaning, I’d certainly agree.
Looked at DPF’s wikipedia entry, and wonder if DPF knows who Fred Hilmer and Gerard Henderson are. It would be a little like getting Roger Kerr and, er, DPF to pronounce on the bias in a NZ newspaper.
I think it’s very telling that if one googles ["the age" melbourne bias] this is what comes up:
Accusations of Bias – http://www.theage.com.au
For Melbourne rapper Bias B, hip-hop isn’t just music. It’s footy, darts and a laugh with your mates, writes Khalil Hegarty. – The Age Online.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
As I said :AGW is baloney – pure and simple, because (as I said yesterday) CO2 doesn’t have any appreciable effect (as there’s so little of it in the atmosphere). Water vapour has far and away more effect. AGW-believers: Please read carefully.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
ANDREW W in particular, NOTE THIS from the second-to-last paragraph of the book review I posted above:
“…..the scientific credentials of his “deniers” far outstrip those of their critics in the vast majority of his cases. Their case is also bolstered by the fact that they are willing to stand up for their positions in the face of overwhelming political and financial pressure.”
April 18th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
The latter jafa – I also like the Age. For the last 12-18 months, I’ve been spending a lot of time in Melbourne and enjoy the Age a great deal.
Ex-f**king-actly! Henderson’s not only pretty far to the right but he’s also a New South Welshman as is Hilmer; why on earth would a Melburnian want to read what they’ve got to say? Has Henderson ever been to a footy game for crissakes?
April 18th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Why compare with 911 conspirists, when a theory is that, just a theory. When there is documented evidence that runs in the thousands of involvement, as in 911, it moves from a conspiracy to a criminal act on a grand scale.
As with this, follow the money. It doesn’t matter what happens, the usual elites are profitting right now off the publics gullibility.
Read the book “propoganda”. It seved well in Nazi Germany and is still used in great effect by big business and Govt today.
It takes a person who can think and and not follow the flow, to understand the bullshit in between, and a backbone to shout it out at the top of their lungs.
Another money making ride, different day.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Not sure if the guys who wrote the book READ the IPCC report, but it (the ‘hockey stick’) was in the 2001 report, and is in the 2005 report. It was reconstructed according to the criticisms and took into account several different temperature records. See page 467 http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf (hope you have a fast connection, it’s BIG) I saw the Liberatarianz were running this angle several months ago too.
Were the authors of the book lying or just stupid?
April 18th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
PhilBest, I guess there are people on this blog who will swallow the twisted conspiracy theories and right-wing fantasies purveyed by the likes of FrontPageMagazine.com and the rest of the David Horowitz empire, but don’t try to pretend that a book review by such a far-right source is in anyway credible to normal people. It’s not.
Stuff like, “Most enviro-weenies with whom you’re apt to argue trumpet Al Gore’s “consensus” and go straight to name-calling” is downright ridiculous. You only have to read that sentence with both eyes open to see who’s namecalling.
Edit: Stephen… “or both”?
April 18th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Jafa
You may not agree with “that sentence” but if you are being honest the “attack” strategy is exactly what the left specialise in.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Yes jafa…
I think a better word for ‘denier’ is really ‘cynic’, as in, *perpetually*. I’m flabbergasted. Why should anyone believe what Forsmark and Solomon ever say again if they can’t even get one very, very simple fact right? What could their motivation possibly be? And what recycled bit of ‘information’ will they come up with next? jeez
April 18th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I never fail to be amused by the” End is Nigh” mob and how they always add But if you pay us some money then the problem will go away
There is always a money tag to the event. Pay some more tax. Air NZs Buy a carbon credit. That will fix the problem Yeah Right The list goes on.
And I do love the Chinese and Indian governments response that the amount of CO2 per person in their countries is only a third of the West so its the West that has the problem.
Me thinks that with a combined population of 2.3 Billion somehow they dont give a rats arse about that moron Al Gore and the other wingnuts.
April 18th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
# Andrew W Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says:
April 18th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
(Emess said)“An conspiracy theory involves some accusations of malign intent, only one side accuses the other of that (in most cases) and it isn’t the skeptics”
(AndrewW replied)”Ahh, sorry emmess, the claimed “malign intent” that those who accept AGW is all over the net: it’s all a “hoax” to increase the power of government and move us further towards socialism.”
This sort of thing doesn’t need to be a conspiracy in the sense of a conspiracy embracing all those who advance the agenda. At its centre it may well be a deliberate conspiracy, in this case at that TRUUUUUSSTWORTHY, politically BAAAALLANCED organisation the U.N. and its precious IPCC. Leftwing groupthink in the media and in bureaucracy does the rest. Any canvassing of journalists political leanings has always revealed that 90% plus of them are leftwing. Same goes for teachers and uni professors. This explains why ANYTHING that is a handy bludgeon with which to beat business, profits, industry, capitalism, and the USA takes off like wildfire irrespective of truth, fairness or honesty.
The same goes for “deconstructionism” and “critical theory” and all the B.S. about deprivation and oppression as opposed to induvidual or cultural responsibility.
April 18th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Re the 9/11 conspiracy theory, come ON. Even Noam Chomsky wasn’t buying that one, on the grounds that so many people would have had to be involved, all of whom had no ethics or conscience, none of whom would have leaked, and anyway Bush had hardly had enough time in power when it happened, and so many of those who would have needed to be involved would have been Clinton-era appointees. This one is just beyond the pale.
April 18th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
OMG, the ice man cometh.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/nov/13/comment.research
So AGW may lead to AGC.
Oh the irony, but just what the doctor ordered.
So let’s do a group panic, as per usual.
Real question is: how can the comrades use AGC to further the agenda.
Will Hulun subsidise the lighting of parafin candles…. win win here, carbon against the cold and seeking an honest man.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
“…..the scientific credentials of his “deniers” far outstrip those of their critics in the vast majority of his cases. Their case is also bolstered by the fact that they are willing to stand up for their positions in the face of overwhelming political and financial pressure.”
Well there must be a lot of other deniers in the book that aren’t mentioned in the reveiw then, eg. claiming “Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, a world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in historical climate research. ” is bizarre, Jaworowski is a nuclear Physicist with no training in working with ice cores.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Reminds me of Aust’s world famous AGW climate scientist……. paleontologist Tim Flannery.
Has mirror, will travel.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Flannery has never claimed to be a climate scientist.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Never mind about The Age. What about The Press? Every day for the last month there was an article about some or other dopey group signing up. Next year I will have to cancel the subscription for a month or so, and buy a nice big V8. It was like having a wombat whack you in the face every morning say “don’t drive to work, live in tent, eat dung, recycle your teabags, you are a bad person, humans are scum…”
Can we really believe that reporters at The Press just badly wanted to write all those inane articles? Actually, thinking it about, it might be true. Sadly.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
That’ll be welcome news to the Aust population who are used to the media salivating over the Flans as “the” climate science guru.
His marketing instincts have apparently prevented him from prefacing every edict with “I’m not qualified as a climate scientist but…” , perfectly understandable, big Al is a close personal friend.
Flans latest faux pas is the destruction of Perth by heat.
Record April rain notwithstanding.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
The Listener, apparently demonstrating a lack of concern over restrictions to free speech, appears to have had a lawyers letter sent to Gareth at Hot Topic.
I read Gareths post several times and I can’t see how legal threats were justified.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
“Record April rain notwithstanding.”
Alces, are you one of those shallow people who wails that AGW “believers” are always claiming any warm event as evidence for GW, and then turns around and claims every cooler weather event as evidence against GW?
Oh, record rain isn’t a cooler weather event, and an increase in weather variability is consistent with AGW, so you got that wrong as well.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Self recognition is not an AGW /AGC strength.
It became “climate change” when “global warming” didn’t fit.
Wetter, drier, colder, hotter, hurricanes, no hurricanes, floods, drought…all strong pointers to anthro “climate change”.
When will volcanoes get a guernsey?
Bwaaaa…
Blair has the Flans sorted…..hence my April showers.
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/ghost_city_soaked/
Don’t fret Andy, this will become politically unsustainable after the first few carbon fine transfers from NZ to Eastern Europe.
Enjoy, it’s only going to get funnier.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Blair: “Before today, persistent lows have soaked the city with 107.8mm of rain since the start of the month and only 41mm of rain needs to fall to break the 1926 April record of 148.8mm.”
Alces: “Record April rain notwithstanding.”
So, you’re wrong AGAIN Alces, Perth is ~2/3 of the way to having record April rain.
Keep trying though, you’re bound to get something right eventually.
April 19th, 2008 at 7:37 am
hmm maybe Australia is going to get more rain and start looking like south America…
April 19th, 2008 at 7:51 am
GNZ, but it will still have Australians…
April 19th, 2008 at 8:17 am
The 1995 IPCC draft report said, “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.” It also said, “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes.” Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate.”
April 19th, 2008 at 9:06 am
The following link pertains more to the media coverage of scientific issues than how the debates proceed inside the scientific community – but I think it provides a valuable insight into how society is dealing (or not) with AGW.
The article deals with the subject of how a mistaken ‘consensus’ can be arrived at and explains how this is quite a common phenomenon that social scientists call ‘cascade theory’. But the thrust of the article is the real-life example of how such a cascade occurred over a period of 30 years with the whole issue of diet, fat and heart disease.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html
April 19th, 2008 at 9:11 am
As brave Perth somehow survives the Flans predictions, our thoughts turn to exactly how much NZ taxpayers money will be transfered to foreigners via carbon fines.
I’ve seen $500mil up to billions quoted over a decade or two, hard to get a handle, but certainly enough to do a big fix on the 2nd world NZ hospital system.
Maybe Hulun doesn’t know that the comrades have folded in Eastern Europe…perhaps this is merely a case of misplaced fraternal support. Now Cuba would make sense.
April 19th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Another example of Cascade Theory is how everyone starts to climb into or out of realestate or the sharemarket because that’s what everyone else is doing.
Obviously Cascade Theory doesn’t apply equally to all situations, and the scientific process is a great tool to minimise such cascades and remove human world (cultural) influences.
It comes back to the science on the table, and after all these years there is very little in the way of good scientific arguments against AGW. Generally the Gollums (people whose addiction to carbon has driven them insane) rely on arguments advanced in the MSM or Gollum blogs rather than scientific papers.
April 19th, 2008 at 9:38 am
your concerns about the financial costs of tackling GH emissions may well be valid Alces, but that’s not a rational argument that AGW isn’t real, nor does it address the costs of failing to undertake measures to reduce emissions.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Self immolating again there Andy?
Your point seems to be that if NZ can do absolutely nothing to reduce world carbon emissions in the slightest measurable way, given the fraud has legs, the huge costs of completely ineffective NZ “measures” should be factored in as a waste of money for the sake of political pretence.
You’re making progress.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:24 am
I think “malign intent” would definitely fit with LYING about the presence of the hockey stick in the IPCC report.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Wow Alces, you’re out doing yourself. Wrong yet again!
How in God’s name did you draw that conclusion from what I said??
Let me try to put it in simpler terms for you:
Your concerns about the cost of mitigation “may well” be valid
Other peoples concerns about the cost of adaptation also may well be valid
No economic concerns or problems that result from the physics will alter the natural laws that determine those physics.
By trying to use economic arguments as proof the AGW is a “fraud” (at least you seem to keep trying to link the two in this way) you’re showing the irrationality common in Gollums (carbon addicts who are in denial about problems caused by their addiction).
April 19th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I blogged about the Age’s problems a few days ago (http://lastargument.blogspot.com/2008/04/age-earth-hour-and-editorial.html). It isn’t just the Earth Hour incident that caused the journalists to speak out, although that was the trigger and probably the most obvious case of lack of editorial independance.
These range from the editors participating on the 20/20 summit here in Australia but also controlling reporting of the summit to the editor in chiefs personal vendetta (expressed fully in the Age) against the dredging of port phillip bay, which has resulted in the Age only reporting things that makes the dredging look bad, and not reporting the good things.
I have links to the motion (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/0809_motion.pdf) passed by the Age and the statement (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/0809_sos.pdf)they issued in support of their motion detailing the six instances of blatent breach of editorial independance on my blog post.
http://lastargument.blogspot.com/
April 19th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
So how bout that Forsmark guy…? Anyone else get their ‘facts’ from frontpage magazine?