Posts by Gareth
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Your interest is in the efforts of the CSC. IMO they are fringe and the more attention you pay them the more credibility they get.
Yes, to an extent that's true, but there is little equivalence between the Leyland/de Freitas article appearing 70,000 copies of The Listener, and my criticism of that piece on a low traffic blog. The media in general seem happy to hide behind notions of providing "balance" or fostering "debate" when printing the CSC stuff, but seems to be happy to ignore the duty of accuracy they owe their readers. The CSC use this to get away with calling black white. And as Kim Griggs has noted in a comment at OnPoint, the lack of scientific understanding in the media is at the root of that problem.
-
I think part of the problem with this whole debate is that there is not one person - to my knowledge - employed as a science reporter by the daily mainstream media in New Zealand. Not one.
Precisely. The sceptics get away with publishing nonsense because there's no-one on staff to point out the errors.
I can only hope that as the real seriousness of the climate issue becomes more apparent, and climate policy becomes mainstream, then most media will be able to spot the whoppers before they hit the press.
-
Sorry I'm not part of your " in crowd" and in on the big secrets. If you don't want these things discussed and people to make judgements, why do you post them on a public blog?
I want people to discuss the issue. I would be better if I was able to talk freely, but that's not possible.
I would very much prefer to focus on the activities of the NZ Climate "Science" Coalition, who are prepared to distort the truth beyond all recognition in pursuit of their political goals.
You posted a story and passed judgement on Pamela stirling and the Listener and encouraged others to do the same based solely on what you published - did you even bother to ask her for her version? - and then you get sniffy that the same standard is applied to you.
Again, I would simply say that your reading of the article is completely different to others. The construction you place on my words is possibly more extreme than even Bell Gully's.
You don't see the slightest hypocrisy in that? What did you expect?
Hypocrisy? Big words from an anonymous poster.
Let me give you an example of how these things should work. Last year, I wrote a scathing review of the NZ Institute's first report on climate change policy. One of the authors was in touch straight away to argue her corner, and I was happy to publish a response from her on behalf of the NZI. The issues got a good airing, in posts and in the comments. There was heat and light. In this case, m'learned friends are helping pile on the heat, but there's precious little light being shed.
That's the real pity.
-
Can I just say that I find it remarkable that i/o feels able to judge - with no knowledge of the facts beyond those published - exactly what went on/is going on. And that his "reading" of my original article is so different to everyone else's - except, perhaps, Ms Striling's.
But then that's freedom of speech, I suppose.
(And no, I will not be commenting on the facts of the matter. I am not at liberty to do so.)
-
__And the idea that we should make dramatic policy decisions with huge consequences based on highly uncertain predicitions is just nuts.__
Governments regularly act on much worse information than we currently possess about the planet's climate system. The Iraq war springs to mind... and let's not mention economic policy.
As Philip points out above, for the planet not to warm up with a 36% increase in CO2 over the last 150 years requires the discovery of some new physics - and the current bunch of sceptics are simply not doing that. More CO2 means more warming. How much, and how bad - that's arguable. The fact of warming is not.
-
If I might interpose a thought....
None of this has anything to do with the real science of climate. The chances that the "consensus" view of how the climate system works will somehow change dramatically in the near future are essentially zero. The last vaguely credible working climate scientists who are vocal sceptics (Lindzen, Christie, etc) have been trying for years to find mechanisms that would damp future warming (negative feedbacks). So far, they've failed miserably, and the evidence seems to be stacking up on the side of the climate system reacting faster to current GHG levels than expected - not less. (see Russell's link to the Pew Centre on ice melt).
Attempts to push "uncertainty" or cracks in the consensus are all about politics, and depend upon having a pliant media - either willing to overtly push a particular line, or inept enough to take press releases like Inhofe's (or the statements of the likes of Bryan Leyland) at face value. The health of the hockey stick is irrelevant - it is enough to repeat (as often as possible) that it is somehow broken.
For more on that, I'd refer you to the appendix of a book on global warming and NZ, but that would be an outrageous bit of self-interest, so I won't... ;-)