http://karldufresne.blogspot.com/2023/02/why-journalists-credibility-is-declining.htmlThe attack on Pugh is what to expect from the fanatical followers of the climate change political religion and dumb politicians! It's like colonialism and racism. Just epithets to make the stupid feel superiour. What we need is some real proof on just
Another superb bit of journalism from one of the country's most competent and
respected practitioners of the art.
I particularly liked this comment.
'The other thing I noticed was that Maureen quite clearly said that she believed that the climate was changing but was not clear on whether the cause
was man. Most of the News Hub bulletin left that bit out and indicated that she
was in fact a climate change denier. That is typical of the non-factual spin that we see more often from journo's.
In the bulletin James Shaw refused to provide access to any documentation that
would have been a response to Maureen's concern.
The article should have been (in mirth) "{Climate Minister refused to show any
proof of man-made Climate Change"'
And this comment
"I am a farmer in HB. I was lucky this time to escape serious damage, but we got hammered by a big storm (localised to the coast) in 2011 that dropped 750mm
and caused huge damage. Before that the 1988 Cyclone Bola was devastating. I don't remember the 1974 flood, but it was bad. And before my time the 1959 flood caused slips we can still see today. Then there was the big storm in the
mid 1940's, the 1938 flood, etc etc. You could almost think that these events
are not 'unprecedented', '1 in 250 years', or 'never occurred before' events after all.
I agree with Maureen, I would like to see some science proving conclusively that weather events are caused primarily by human activity. My humble brain looks at the world and weather systems and sees complexity far beyond my ability to comprehend it, and it is easy for me to suspect our weather computer
models may not be 100% perfect yet. The fact that our weather experts seem incapable of accurately predicting weather 2 days out suggests to me that viewing their weather predictions for decades to come with some open-mindedness
may be prudent."
(What a lovely sentiment that last comment ended with).
That is what I picked up on - those who call her a denier don't even know what
that word implies. The word is ill-defined by those who mostly use it around climate change matters.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
http://karldufresne.blogspot.com/2023/02/why-journalists-credibility-is-declining.htmlHere's a response from Richie's love to hate site BFD that should have his tits well and truely knotted:)
Another superb bit of journalism from one of the country's most competent and
respected practitioners of the art.
I particularly liked this comment.
'The other thing I noticed was that Maureen quite clearly said that she believed that the climate was changing but was not clear on whether the cause
was man. Most of the News Hub bulletin left that bit out and indicated that she
was in fact a climate change denier. That is typical of the non-factual spin that we see more often from journo's.
In the bulletin James Shaw refused to provide access to any documentation that
would have been a response to Maureen's concern.
The article should have been (in mirth) "{Climate Minister refused to show any
proof of man-made Climate Change"'
And this comment
"I am a farmer in HB. I was lucky this time to escape serious damage, but we got hammered by a big storm (localised to the coast) in 2011 that dropped 750mm
and caused huge damage. Before that the 1988 Cyclone Bola was devastating. I don't remember the 1974 flood, but it was bad. And before my time the 1959 flood caused slips we can still see today. Then there was the big storm in the
mid 1940's, the 1938 flood, etc etc. You could almost think that these events
are not 'unprecedented', '1 in 250 years', or 'never occurred before' events after all.
I agree with Maureen, I would like to see some science proving conclusively that weather events are caused primarily by human activity. My humble brain looks at the world and weather systems and sees complexity far beyond my ability to comprehend it, and it is easy for me to suspect our weather computer
models may not be 100% perfect yet. The fact that our weather experts seem incapable of accurately predicting weather 2 days out suggests to me that viewing their weather predictions for decades to come with some open-mindedness
may be prudent."
(What a lovely sentiment that last comment ended with).
That is what I picked up on - those who call her a denier don't even know what
that word implies. The word is ill-defined by those who mostly use it around climate change matters.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 8:10:33 AM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
http://karldufresne.blogspot.com/2023/02/why-journalists-credibility-is-declining.htmlHere's a response from Richie's love to hate site BFD that should have his tits well and truely knotted:)
Another superb bit of journalism from one of the country's most competent and
respected practitioners of the art.
I particularly liked this comment.
'The other thing I noticed was that Maureen quite clearly said that she
believed that the climate was changing but was not clear on whether the cause
was man. Most of the News Hub bulletin left that bit out and indicated that she
was in fact a climate change denier. That is typical of the non-factual spin >> that we see more often from journo's.
In the bulletin James Shaw refused to provide access to any documentation that
would have been a response to Maureen's concern.
The article should have been (in mirth) "{Climate Minister refused to show any
proof of man-made Climate Change"'
And this comment
"I am a farmer in HB. I was lucky this time to escape serious damage, but we >> got hammered by a big storm (localised to the coast) in 2011 that dropped 750mm
and caused huge damage. Before that the 1988 Cyclone Bola was devastating. I >> don't remember the 1974 flood, but it was bad. And before my time the 1959 >> flood caused slips we can still see today. Then there was the big storm in the
mid 1940's, the 1938 flood, etc etc. You could almost think that these events
are not 'unprecedented', '1 in 250 years', or 'never occurred before' events >> after all.
I agree with Maureen, I would like to see some science proving conclusively >> that weather events are caused primarily by human activity. My humble brain >> looks at the world and weather systems and sees complexity far beyond my
ability to comprehend it, and it is easy for me to suspect our weather computer
models may not be 100% perfect yet. The fact that our weather experts seem >> incapable of accurately predicting weather 2 days out suggests to me that
viewing their weather predictions for decades to come with some open-mindedness
may be prudent."
(What a lovely sentiment that last comment ended with).
That is what I picked up on - those who call her a denier don't even know what
that word implies. The word is ill-defined by those who mostly use it around >> climate change matters.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300816313/national-pledges-to-scrap-three-waters-and-deliver-local-water-well
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 115:52:48 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,175 |