Colbert does Bjorn Lomborg
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/09/colbert_does_bj.php

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Balance in the media is biased!

It is balanced journalism (giving both sides a voice) that has resulted in the situation we have today where the general public has the impression that there is not a consensus among scientists.

we analyzed articles about human contributions to global warming that appeared between 1988 and 2002 in the U.S. prestige press: the New York Times , Washington Post , Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal .

Using the search term “global warming,� we collected articles from this time period and focused on what is considered “hard news,� excluding editorials, opinion columns, letters to the editor and book reviews. Approximately 41 percent of articles came from the New York Times , 29 percent from the Washington Post , 25 percent from the Los Angeles Times , and 5 percent from the Wall Street Journal .

From a total of 3,543 articles, we examined a random sample of 636 articles. Our results showed that the majority of these stories were, in fact, structured on the journalistic norm of balanced reporting, giving the impression that the scientific community was embroiled in a rip-roaring debate on whether or not humans were contributing to global warming….

Through statistical analyses, we found that coverage significantly diverged from the IPCC consensus on human contributions to global warming from 1990 through 2002. In other words, through adherence to the norm of balance, the U.S. press systematically proliferated an informational bias

http://www.celsias.com/2007/01/26/media-bias-checks-and-balances/

and I don’t know where you get the impression that the BBC is not fully behind the war of terror – they certainly toe the govt line on Iraq/terrorism at home.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The BBC’s problem (since most of you never watch all its channels or pay for them, I do) is that it did not present alternative views on how to address global warming or the reasons for climate change. For a broadcaster that claims scrupulous impartiality (never calling anyone a terrorist for example), it must present different sides. It has bleeted on about food miles for well over a year, presenting the same rubbish that distance is the definitive measure of the carbon footprint of food production and distribution – it bleets on that recycling is always good for the environment, when sometimes it clearly is not.

It is quite correct that the BBC is not to lead opinion on any subject, it has been that way for decades. I don’t expect the BBC to lead the fight against Islamism (and it really doesn’t) so you shouldn’t expect it to lead the fight against climate change – especially since you don’t pay a penny towards its upkeep.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Communism was/is made up in the most part of our privatisation rightie types, who happened to live in less-industrial advanced countries that were going totalitarian, so they end up hard core state agents. New Zealand’s full of them, except they identify as free market libertarians types due to circumstance a great deal, which our debt based democracy encourages since it goes in the absolute opposite direction to the individual freedom obtained by having a share in an economic democracy as a citizen right.
Whatever the circumstance and cloth, it is only through keeping them out of the management of the commonwealth that is built into debt free capitalism independently, that demand and supply un-interfered with will deliver true democracy.
http://www.democrats.org.nz

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

jh

Communism is for those who lack imagination to envision alternative solutions to political, social, and economic problems. They obviously don’t realize that the world has changed markedly since the time of Karl Marx, although much of what he wrote is still as true today as it was back then.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BBC World’s advertisers seem to be mainly Arab countries who build golf courses in the desert or airlines. Nuff said. . .
Also, I do wish these climate change deniers would go and hang out on some other blog. They are so last century . . .

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Stuey asked “do you have any figures for the % of NZ earnings that come from cattle-related industries?” and “Do you have any proof that NZ farmers would not be able to adapt and switch to other livestock or crops (or indeed forestry or tourism).”

These figures answer the first question and answer the economic aspect of the second question.

2006, billion dollars,
Tourism 8.3
Dairy produce 6.0
Meat 4.6
Wood & pulp 2.6
Fruit 1.2
Fish 1.2
Casein 0.7
Animal fibres 0.7
Raw hides 0.5
Vegetables 0.4

http://treasury.govt.nz/nzefo/2007/07.asp
http://www.tianz.org.nz/industry-facts/key-facts–figures.asp

ps, total of merchandise exports + tourism = 42 billion

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Big Bro:

Global warming is not a con. The scientific evidence pointing towards the current global warming being caused by human activity is very strong. It doesn’t matter what your personal politics are, you simply can’t ignore what the meteorological observations are telling us is happening (and has already happened).

Here is the link to the Working Group 1 report of the Fourth Assessment Report:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

The summary for policy makers (second link on the page) is quite readable, and won’t take long to get through. Why don’t you read it (if you haven’t already)?

I’m not making any suggestions as to what policy needs to be implemented to deal with climate change … I would just ask that people like you read through the scientific summary with an open mind. The scientists who worked on this report are not part of some politically motivated conspiracy, they are just normal people, from all political backgrounds, who have an enormous amount of experience in climate science.

If you read the report, or the summary, you’ll see that there are still quite a few areas where there is controversy and uncertainty. However, the basic assertion that there has been a human caused global warming is now backed up by a very large amount of evidence, and is very likely correct.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Actually that “very high” confidence is just about right. Those in the Scientific Community very seldom express more confidence than that in any attribution of causation. The science in this case has been pretty damned thorough.

If anyone has any specific question I will have a go at answering it or providing a link to an answer that I regard as correct. I know the science and I once worked with some of them. I cannot imagine, knowing those things, what BB and PEL are really doubting, but the important thing is that those doubts cannot be relieved by anything but more information.

Now I do not know all that has gone on here, but the rules about ad-hominem argument have not been in place long enough for me to really have a feel for them. I can be pretty damned insulting myself and I regard it more as an art-form than a means of winning arguments.

You only WIN an argument when agreement is reached.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Time to ban alcohol again.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Shame on you Frogmaster.

PEL is a valuable member of this forum……….. mind you given the Green parties support of the Electoral finance bill I am not surprised you want to silence anybody who does not agree with your view.

I ask again, why are the Greens so quick to slag off anybody who is not fooled by the global warming con?…are you all hoping that if you cry wolf enough the world will believe you?

Anyway, back to PEL, you would do well to listen to him and his views, he is an intelligent man who IMHO represents the middle voter, he is not as extreme as I but his views are well represented in our communities, if you insist on silencing people like him or worse, do not listen to his message then you will be obliterated at the next election.

frogmaster: we haven’t silenced him. we haven’t done anything to him except some minor edits here and there. he chose to storm off in a huff.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

PEL

Perhaps we would not need to spend so much on health if people did not continue to clog up their arteries with dead animal. In fact every social advance will always mean an adjustment in our economy, including some people having to accept commercial reality and retrain.

Most people for example would agree that the world overall became a better place when it was no longer fashionable or legal to burn supposed witches at the stake. But think how many people lost their livelihood as a result, and the effect on the economy. Trained inquisitors, inquisitor schools, suppliers of stakes, faggots, torture equipment, how did the economy cope with the change? There used to be a thriving industry in canes, whips, staps, tawses and other instruments of “correction” for schools, but where are they now?

The same can be said for slavery, abolition of chastity belts, the crusades, the ending of world war 2, and pretty much any other positive change you can think of. In the end what counts is not whether something contributes to the economy but whether it is right. Something will contribute most to the economy if lots of people do it, but by the same token, if lots of people do it but it is destructive, unhealthy or inhumane, then that is all the more reason for its abolition.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Free speech is not the same thing as the right to insult other people in a private space.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I am no longer able to speak for myself, unfortunately. My words are moderated so that they lose their meaning.

Goodbye.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Stuey, I think PEL might be referring the the large amount of carbon dioxide emiited by the
aircraft bringing international tourists to New Zealand? This is indeed a real issue which
probably should be considered. If tourists had to come on low emission forms of transport
(e.g. sailing ships), I think it might discourage a lot of people.

Anyhow, since people seemed obsessed with cows, and cow emissions of methane (which incidentally, mostly
come out the mouth, not where you might expect), there may be technological solutions. I think
(someone can correct me if I’m wrong), that a lot of research is going into breeding animals
that produce less methane during digestion.

Anyhow, whatever benefits technology may bring us, we have to face up to the possibility that
if we don’t do anything, the economy may be affected much more severely than if we start addressing
the problems now.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

eh what, tourism? where did that come from? are you saying that all our international visitors come here to look at our herds of cows?

Seriously though, do you have any figures for the % of NZ earnings that come from cattle-related industries? Do you have any proof that NZ farmers would not be able to adapt and switch to other livestock or crops (or indeed forestry or tourism).

I previously explained that if there is a Green policy on cows it is to introduce regulations or changes to the tax structure in order to make cattle rearing less favourable and to allow farmers to make their own minds up what to do.

You seem to be implying that if farmers decided not to raise cattle any more because it was less economic to do so, that they would not switch to anything else they would just stop farming and the land would lie fallow. That seems completely unrealistic to me. I can’t really see a farmer saying “hmm raising cattle doesn’t give me as much profit as it used to, I think I will stop being a farmer”.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>we would be better off without them

So once we get rid of the nasty cows, and nasty tourism, how are we going to pay for, say, health?

Samiuela – thanks for those useful tips.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

perhaps a “make this cow your last” type arrangement? how long does a cow live for anyhow (if left to its own devices but provided with pastures to frolic in)?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

PEL: “80% fewer cows than we have today”

so what if it is? what is the problem with that? cows fuck up the environment (in lots of ways) and we would be better off without them.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

PEL: I am very familiar with the basic science of climate change (I am not a climate scientist, so defer to the experts on the details). I do not know who you are referring to.

Anyhow, you are right, the personalities shouldn’t matter. The fact is that there is now a very large amount of evidence which points to the current climate change being mainly caused by human activity. You should read the IPCC summary report I quoted from above. You can download it from several Internet sites; it should be quite understandable to someone with a high school
science education.

If you find the science of climate chamge cryptic, you can find many books on the subject in your local public library. Sites like Wikipedia might also help you.

I strongly suggest that you familiarise yourself with the basic science before you start criticising the views of the majority of experts. Good luck with your research.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)