- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Monday, August 16, 2010

Shame on NZ Herald climate denier spin

Niwa challenged over accuracy of data
The country's state-owned weather and atmospheric research body is being taken to court in a challenge over the accuracy of its data used to calculate global warming

Instead of giving climate deniers a platform, why on earth isn't the NZ Herald focusing on these climate deniers possibly hiding behind trusts to launch legal action from behind?

Why even give their failed argument that the records are false any platform when they have been conclusively proven wrong in those assertions?

Why is the NZ Herald promoting one sided climate denier propaganda? There is no evidence their assertions of false temperature taking is legitimate, if anything the numbers released by NIWA in response to this climate denial attack in the first place shows undeniable warming.

What's next from the NZ Herald? A story from the newly-incorporated charitable trust, the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust, where they take a legal case proving once and for all that the planet is held up by four elephants standing on a large turtle?



Shame on NZ Herald not telling the full story!

11 Comments:

At 16/8/10 11:07 am, Blogger dave said...

New Zealand Climate Divine Creation Trust (in God and Mammon).

 
At 16/8/10 2:20 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you afraid to have this examined for some reason?

 
At 16/8/10 3:56 pm, Anonymous Edward said...

...and there's the conspiracy drop. It's so cliche I'm just going to assume anon is being satirical..

 
At 16/8/10 5:59 pm, Anonymous fatty said...

Its the Herald, I wouldn't wipe my arse with that paper.
Its joke for intelligent people, news for the ignorant people.

 
At 16/8/10 6:43 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Free speech is a bitch ain't it Bomber, especially to those who want to suppress our right to hear both sides of the argument.

 
At 16/8/10 6:47 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Artic ice melting could be caused by the massive volcanic activity under the artic it self.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140649.htm

 
At 16/8/10 6:48 pm, Anonymous Johnson said...

Tinkle tinkle tinkle!

"Its joke for intelligent people,"

I hope you don't count yourself among their number.

 
At 16/8/10 7:59 pm, Blogger Cameron Campbell said...

Edward, you can only hope eh?

Because the alternative is too scary to imagine.. because everyone knows the best place to test science is in a court.

 
At 17/8/10 7:24 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ideal opportunity for NIWA to prove their temperature record is sound.
However as is always the case with the small clique of people with science degrees that are at the core of claims that human CO2 emissions are causing/will cause/have caused CAGW DAGW, NIWA will fight like crazy to avoid objective scrutiny of their claims and methods.
Such behaviour only increases suspicion.
If their science is solid why object to demonstrating that?
Why try to hide data and methodology?

 
At 17/8/10 7:43 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Shame on the NZ Herald not telling the full story!"

All journalists know biased reporting sells more newspapers (or attracts more viewers). The interesting thing about reading the Herald, or watching One News, is trying to spot which story has been skewed the most. You don't have to lie to distort events, just emphasise certain pieces of information, while ignoring others.

The minute sales or viewing figures become the most important thing to any news organization, it’s the kiss of death for fair, unbiased reporting.

 
At 18/8/10 1:04 pm, Blogger Unifex said...

I do find it entertaining that the blatant climate deniers here all seem hesitant to sign their name to their claims.

Anon:
"Ideal opportunity for NIWA to prove their temperature record is sound."

They've published already. Using accepted methods within climate science. These idiots that are claiming otherwise should be doing the same instead of bringing the legal system into it. The raw data is publicly available. They have no excuse not to publish unless they don't understand what the data means, how to use it etc. And if that's the case, why the hell should anyone listen to them in the first place?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home