Well said, Bart.
Told me all about your 'arguments' before I read them!
I understand that climatologists consider periods less than 30 years as of little use in determining trends - so a 17 year 8 month period just screams 'data cherry-picked to show what I want it to show'.
"2014 ranks as Earth’s warmest since 1880" - NASA and NOAA.
"The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000." http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2221/
Note that these relate to global land and ocean surface temperatures.
These seem to suggest strongly that there is a trend that cherry-picked data may be hiding. Of course, that may be the intent of selecting that data.
Just to add to this, on the front page of today's Nelson paper and under the headline "Key's hair-pulling not OK, says waitress" there appears an article with a photo taken last year.
The photo caption reads "Prime Minister John Key plays with a young girl's hair as he talks to mothers at the opening of the Nelson Young Parents School at Auckland Point School last year". It certainly shows the man with his fingers in hair.
I cannot find the article or the photo in the on-line edition at Stuff!
Bridges For Everyone
You mean Simon has a few bridges for sale?
Sorry if this gets under your skin, Jeremy, but I am not looking for a conspiracy. I was looking for a reasonable explanation in the questions I asked and which you have ignored.
Perhaps I was thinking more of current affairs, but as st ephen pointed out that was left out of the analysis.
So, do you have any explanation as to why the national media are so Auckland-centric?
My association with the maligned Auckland-based media prompts my replies.....not a lack of sympathy for Christchurch.
Then perhaps you would comment on the information presented in Gerard's post:
Over these three months Christchurch appeared on national screens on average for 33 minutes a week. Aucklanders saw themselves for 659 minutes – twenty times Christchurch’s lot. And this was after we had had an earthquake.
I am disturbed by the apparent discrepancy, and at a loss to see why this has occurred. It's not because of relative population size. Is it because of relative financial clout? Was there something nationally more important happening in Auckland over those 3 months?
In the absence of evidence one way or another, perhaps it is not surprising that people at least consider that possibly the reason is that Auckland-based national media just aren't interested in Christchurch unless there is some controversy.
Now who is touchy? Suppose away ...
I tried to write a reasoned response to your nit-picking post and your supremely patronising response to someone who is living through the Christchurch mess, but words failed me ...
The quiet voice in all this has been outrage within the National Party.
What evidence is there that points to any outrage in the National Party? Matthew Hooton? Others?
There do not appear to be any speaking up. Perhaps we need to assume that they all accept the behaviour. After all it is looking good for winning the election.