Month: April 2008

The sincerest form of flat earthery

discworld.jpg I can’t resist a small (flat, disc-shaped) chortle. While the great communicator (Prof Bob) was readying himself to address an august audience at the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron in Auckland last Saturday, a bunch of members of the NZ branch of the Flat Earth Society (dressed in clothing from their favourite historical period – the Medieval Warm Period) were handing out leaflets suggesting that the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition might like to join with them to resist the dark forces of rationalism. From the leaflet:

The Flat Earth Society and the Climate Science Coalition (with Bob Carter) have so much in common. While the NZ CSC is relatively new, we at the FES have had centuries of experience in battling against against a mass of overwhelming scientific evidence, and believe may be able to learn from and indeed support each other.

The NZCSC seems to have come to a critical point that appears to be tipping against you – a point where fewer people believe in your position. Believe us, we’ve been there, we know what it’s like.

Don Brash was there.

“I occupy the balanced middle of this debate”

homer.jpg Sunday morning laughs. Bob Carter, a particularly voluble member of the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition, is in New Zealand doing a “lecture tour”. He’s addressing a number of Rotary groups around the North Island. But the slick PR machine* inside the C”S”C obtained a top TV gig for Prof Bob, and he was interviewed on Shine TV recently. I won’t embed the YouTube video here (I think a young Mick Jagger is better for the blog’s image), but I would like to draw your attention to the breathtaking chutzpah of the man as he defines the “climate debate”. At about 0:35s he says (roughly transcribed):

On the one hand you have what are called the deniers, the people that deny climate change happens at all. It’s a very small group, and I don’t know any who are really significant scientists. On the other hand you have the alarmists, who say that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, it’s our CO2 emissions that are the problem, and we need to do something about it. Now, both of these groups have shrill voices, and it’s fair to say that the press has dominantly picked up the alarmist shrill view. The great majority of scientists sit in the middle. I’m in New Zealand, as you know, giving a lecture tour, and I occupy the balanced middle of this debate.

Astonishing. He’s not so much attempting to shift the Overton window, as move it to the house next door. And he says it with such assurance. No doubt there will be an upswing in scepticism in Rotarian circles in the rural North Island. I’ll have to organise a tour of Probus groups to counter the great man’s efforts.

* That’s only half a joke. They’re very good at getting themselves noticed.

Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?


Media Law Journal, Poneke (first, second, third), Public Address: Hard News, OnPoint, Kiwiblog (first, second), No Right Turn, Deltoid (first, second, third), Audent (first, second), Southern Dave, Barista, Tim Jones, from the morgue, Website.net.nz, Scoop.

[Update: Media7 coverage here, plus a somewhat confused David Cohen in the NBR]

[Update 2: International Journal of Inactivism, Mediawatch (27/4, Radio New Zealand).]

If you come across any more, stick ’em in the comments, and I’ll promote them to the post.

[Wikipedia, butterfliesandwheels.com]

The law won (again)

Correction and apology to The Listener and its editor Pamela Stirling

On 16 April 2008 we published on this site an article written by Gareth Renowden entitled “Climate cranks claim a scalp”. That article suggested that Dave Hansford had been sacked by The Listener as a result of views that he expressed on climate change, and that The Listener had caved in to pressure from the NZ Climate Science Coalition, or had sacked him because his views did nor coincide with those of The Listener‘s editor, Pamela Stirling. The article also questioned The Listener‘s commitment to environmental issues and its editorial integrity and independence, and was critical of its conduct with respect to Mr Hansford. In fact Mr Hansford was not sacked by The Listener, and nor did The Listener seek to censor or suppress Mr Hansford’s views. Hot Topic and AUT Media Ltd accept that The Listener and its editor have a strong commitment to environmental issues, and that there was no basis for any of the criticisms expressed on this site of either The Listener or its editor, or of the editorial integrity and independence of The Listener. Hot Topic and AUT Media Ltd unreservedly withdraw those statements an apologise to The Listener and to Pamela Stirling for the distress caused by our publication.

More on The Listener

Listener.jpg The Listener’s unfortunately timed decision to drop Dave Hansford as its Ecologic columnist is certainly making waves around the blogs, and is now being taken up by the general media. John Drinnan covers the story in the Herald today, and the issue has been commented on at Hard News, No Right Turn, Poneke, and (for balance, of course 😉 ) at Kiwiblog. Meanwhile Hansford has been interviewed for next week’s Media7 programme, and the issue is expected to be covered by Mediawatch on RadioNZ National this weekend. The comments here have been lively too – look for posts by some of the key players – including sceptics.

I’ll bring you more on this story as it develops. In the meantime, I offer you this article from the BBC, which discusses how a responsible media organisation should approach the question of balance in climate coverage. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine how the Listener performs in that context.