Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
For those who have access to a hardcopy of today's Herald, there is a letter from Joyce on the letters page, in which he responds to criticism of his 'big truck' policy.
Letters page does not appear to be available online.
-
Spaced
Well, if we're talking 'spaced', then surely the episode where Tim and Daisy go for a night out?
"spark up a big fatty McGratty, head up to Camden on the tube, find the nearest indie pub with an eclectic juke box and drink until we: a) fall over, or b) pass out, or c) fall over and pass out"
-
I still enjoy driving in London. The traffic is far denser but as everybody is driving defensively you can nip in and out of traffic with ease, people just share that space so effectively.
I really noticed that during my last trip to London in 2001. We were being let through (not even anything as assertive as waved through) for turns we'd never have made in Auckland.
Having just come back from a trip to the motherland, I would, respectfully, disagree. Getting across London at any time of day/week was a friggin' nightmare, and although the majority of drivers were polite, there were enough over-agressive knobheads whipping up on the inside (the one place you don't tend to look when moving slowly in traffic) to make driving a not altogether pleasant experience.
The motorways were (usually) fine, until there was an accident at some point in front of you, in which case you could add a good couple of hours to your journey time.
-
Hopefully this is the clip I think it is. I'm flying blind due to firewall issues.
-
Fair enough.
-
Just getting it across to Devonport...
...will never happen.
Takapuna maybe, but Devonport? From the city?
Where would a rail link go from there? Up to Takapuna parallel to Lake Rd? Seriously?
-
the peaceable appearance of any society is much more fragile and easily disrupted than you might think
24 hours and three hot meals does seem rather optimistic these days.
-
Something that I'm having difficulty understanding in relation to the court action is: what are the grounds? Under what law are CSC bringing their action?
It doesn't seem to be fully explained in any of the press I've read.
The Penguin/Irving case, and the Simon Singh/BCA case, were fought out under UK libel law (I assume NZ libel law is significantly different).
So what are the legal grounds for their complaint?
If some PAS legal type with a more mainstream legal background than me can shed some light on this, I'd be grateful.
-
Rich is of course talking about the UK. Last night I caught a repeat of Kim Hill's 7 August interview with Simon Singh who successful defended a case, talking about his own experience and what is, I understand, the near-universal support for rational change sooner rather than later.
He sucessfully defended his case, yes (as did Penguin and Deborah Lipstadt). The question is whether the plaintiff (in both cases) should have been able to bring the case in the first place, causing years of stress and financial hardship to the defendants, who were, in the end, fully exonerated.
-
Meanwhile, they get to libel every climate scientist in NZ through the courts
I'm halfway through reading Richard J. Evans's account* of the David Irving/Penguin books libel trial
As a defence against libel is to show that what was said was true, and as Penguin were being sued by Irving for libelling him as a holocaust denier, part of the defence was for Professor Evans to systematically define the characteristics of a denialism, and then show that Irving's work fitted the profile.
It's quite striking how many characteristics are shared by the two different types of denier: cherry-picking of facts that fit a theory and ignoring those that don't, twisting of facts that can't be overlooked, concessions on minor points in order to make it appear that a contrary position on a major point is reasonable, belief that a shadowy conspiratorial group is hiding 'the truth', etc.**
In the end, Irving had his day in court, and had his reputation destroyed.
But in order to do so, the defence team spent two years full time preparing for the case. The cost of defending the accusation of libel was millions of pounds. To defeat just one guy who held a view that was pretty far outside the mainstream anyway (in contrast with climate change denial, which is worryingly mainstream).
If this is the start of a trend for fighting climate science battles through the courts, it's a worrying development. The science is far harder to understand than historical documents are. The cost for fighting each action is going to be huge. And it is likely that the key aim (to sow doubt in the minds of the general public) is going to be achieved whatever the result is (Professor Evans pulls no punches at the end of his account in naming and shaming journalists who couldn't get the basic facts of what the trial was about and what happened correct, let alone the conclusion).
These people are well-motivated, well-funded and have a clear strategy and game plan. A counter-strategy is urgently needed.
*Mad love to Simon Grigg for pointing me in the direction of this guy.
**Why, yes, not only did I just Godwin this thread, but I explicitly compared climate change deniers with holocaust deniers. I'm entirely comfortable with that, although I should probably point out that 'denier' indicates an extremist position of explicit denial and a closed mind, rather than someone who has yet to be convinced.