Yeah Riddley, that's what I meant about dog-whistling.
The Listener's free to take any position it wants, but I'm also free to decline to renew the two subscriptions I currently support.
I agree with Terence, Pamela Stirling is a good writer, and she did some wonderful stuff about violence against women and children back in the nineties, when some of the men on the staff were pretty skeptical.
She has a bit of a bee in her bonnet about the NCEA, but that's the most consistent thing I've noticed about her opinions. But under her editorship Gordon Campbell went and Joanne Black arrived, so that says something, I suppose.
Jane Clifton makes me laugh out loud, and she's usually even-handed enough for me to have been very surprised to find out that M McCulley was her partner. But when I heard that Joanne Black's partner worked for John Key, I was not (surprised that is). I now read her page with more interest than I did, in case she's a secret np dogwhistler and spinner. So this week her verdict on the Section 59 Bill was interesting - Labour and the Greens swallowed a dead rat. Not how I saw it.
Sue Kedgley and Garth George are on the Panel today! (Tues)
Sarah, I saw a new paperback copy of Marianne Dreams in the Dunedin UBS a few days ago for a few bucks. Would you like it?
I've registered just to comment on this thread, in particular to ask what was the story behind the Natrad Insight documentary on climate sceptics last Sunday? Do you think they did it because someone was jumping up and down sceaming "balance!"
Anyway, to recycle what I posted on the frogblog thread:
What did people think of the National Radio Insight documentary on climate sceptics that played last Sunday? Apparently it was the first of three slots on cc, and the next one is going to be devoted to “What does carbon neutrality mean?” I hope the final insight gives the real climate scientists a chance to respond to some of the more egregious things that were said last weekend.
The sceptic documentary was very strange - I couldn’t work out if Sue Ingram was just going through the motions because she’d been told to and letting them say whatever they wanted and make fools of themselves, and her voiceover was ironical, or if she was sympathetic to what they were saying. At least she stuck mostly to the so-called “science” without letting more than a hint of the wilder political/conspiracy claims show through. But that “science” was the same old tired, self-referential mis-statements, half-truths and down-right lies I’ve been reading over and over and over on climate blogs for the last few months.
I veered between being irritated that they were getting a whole programme to speak without being challenged, and pleasure that lame statements like “a rise in temperature of one degree is like walking into another room” was the best they could manage. I’ve decided that deniers/sceptics don’t make a serious attempt to tackle the core issue of the physics of the impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, and the fact that this stuff up is the result of pouring in hundreds of thousands of fossilized sunshine into our atmosphere in increasing rates. Because those two facts are indisputable.
Instead, they attempt a “death of a thousand cuts” by poking round at every uncertainty round the edges, and pretending that that discredits the central premise. Or else they don’t even try to argue and just make outrageous statements.