Posts by Dave Hansford
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Envirologue: The Agony of Vanuatu and…, in reply to Samuel Buckman,
Many of the world's big dairy producers – India, China, Uruguay, the US, the EU – supply much larger domestic markets than does New Zealand. We export the vast bulk of our production...
-
Envirologue: The Agony of Vanuatu and…, in reply to LizR,
Hi Liz: you'll find it here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/9939453/Kiwis-big-greenhouse-emitters
-
Envirologue: The Agony of Vanuatu and…, in reply to Martin Connelly,
Hi Martin: one can continue to argue that New Zealand's contribution to climate change is negligible, but that disregards a number of points that I think are important. One: if every nation formulated climate policy on that basis, we would never achieve anything – Groser is right when he insists on collective action, because this is a collective problem. Two: it is absolutely vital that we try – as the minimum responsibility to those generations in front of us – to constrain warming to 2ºC. Whether we can, or whether it's already too late, is moot: we must have a global ambition. That immediately makes New Zealand's emissions significant, and the fact they're on track to blow out by another 50 per cent makes our climate policy critically important. Yes, adaptation is a critical part of our response, but we must rise up to the responsibility we bear to do no further harm in the first place.
-
Thanks Bart: you're very welcome to plagiarise, if it gets the notion out there...
-
Envirologue: 1080, "eco-terrorism" and agendas, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Rich: thank you for the toxin/toxic substance correction. I honestly had no idea of the distinction, but it’s lodged in my subconscious spellcheck now.
-
Envirologue: 1080, "eco-terrorism" and agendas, in reply to Lilith __,
Hi Lilith: In that passage, I meant that there are certain issues that excite intense conviction, sharply polarised alignment and strident views. These issues are often debated heedless of, or to the conscious rejection of, any conflicting evidence, much as they would be in conservative religion. Psychologists, incidentally, recognise this phenomenon in a certain personality type and call it “collective reinforcement”. The internet has allowed people of like minds to form stronger communities, and has greatly enabled such reinforcement. The broad notion is that these people would seem to find fraternity and acceptance in a “safe” environment where their beliefs don’t just go unchallenged, but enjoy endorsement and repetition. One important distinction is that these groups tend to conduct their arguments from a platform of implicit belief and rote recital – not objective, independent scrutiny. This certainly characterises some elements of the anti-1080 community. I would point out that this peer group lies somewhere diametrically opposite a heathy, functioning scientific community, where researchers routinely face the scrutiny, criticism, even opprobrium of their colleagues as a normal, essential part of the culture of rigour.
-
Certain individuals have put a great deal of time and effort here and elsewhere into trying to draw attention away from the Climate Science Coalition, which is where the spotlight should remain firmly focused.
It’s important to remember the fundamental issue that provoked this saga, which has given us an opportunity to critically appraise the issue of the media’s handling of the climate denial industry.
If there’s to be a positive outcome, let’s hope it will be that the media finally (if belatedly) steps back from this counterproductive modus operandi and conducts instead a lucid re-analysis of its relationship with the denial industry (and by extension, US conservative front groups).
We need to replace the denial industry in its correct position and appropriate status in climate change reporting.
That is to say; we recognise them for what they are, and duly attribute them so; political lobbyists pushing a free-market agenda. With the exception of Chris deFreitas THEY ARE NOT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (and my understanding of Chris’ work is that it does not focus on global climate modelling).
Given that they are in fact a political entity, instead of a scientific one, let’s by all means consider and report their comments on mitigation policy, pricing instruments, even energy options (that’s something Bryan Leyland can at least claim some experience in). That is their rightful place in climate change coverage.
Let’s hope the media can – as did the BBC and the New York Times – come up with an editorial policy that does not deny readers the critical information they need to evaluate the claims by the Climate Science Coalition.
That information is;
* that these people are not qualified (again, with the possible exception of deFreitas) to call the IPCC’s findings into question,*that they are paid by industry to stall progress on climate change policy,
*and that they shown repeatedly that they will attempt to have critical reporters silenced.
The Listener’s “right of reply” piece this week denied its readers even that basic background – as does virtually all mainstream media treatment. (Incidentally, its piece – also this week – on evolution, did not go to any creationists for their comments. It seems “balance” is being employed selectively)
That firmly established, we then need to decide precisely what weight, in terms of percentage coverage, we give them. They represent a minority position, and a still smaller one at that. I think that would be an excellent place to begin.
Finally, the media must apply the same standards of accuracy, balance and credibility to these sources as they expect of their own reporters. There has been a signal failure to do this.
The media is complicit in this. We helped create this monster; we gave it oxygen, energy and exposure. We lent it a credibility it has not earned. Now it’s turned around and bitten us. It’s out of control, and we have to decide what to do about it.
CSC is not only attempting to subvert media process; it's intensively lobbying local and central government in an attempt to stall climate policy.
Given their backing from the likes of the US front groups Heartland Institute and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, we may want to examine whether we have a sovereignty issue on our hands as well.
Climate change is the single biggest, most important environmental threat New Zealanders face, and the media, by pandering to the denial industry, has manifestly failed to give them the quality of information they need to respond to it. Meanwhile, we squander our most precious resource; time.
-
Pamela Stirling’s statement in John Drinnan’s column this morning is correct. I took on Ecologic back in November when the incumbent columnist, Francesca Price, took leave to work on another project.
As such, it was indeed a temporary arrangement. But it was not terminated on the due date, and continued to run as Francesca’s leave extended. The fact that Francesca did not, in the end, return to reclaim her column did not automatically mean it was mine in perpetuity.
But if my time was simply “up,” it’s baffling that I wasn’t simply told that. I was told instead that negotiations over Francesca’s return were under way. They were not.
Francesca had already made it clear she was not returning. I was then told that I had been “rationalised” in a response to a shrinking contributors’ budget. That the column would be brought in-house because the magazine could no longer afford a freelancer to write it.
I accepted that explanation, but it soon transpired that The Listener had, in fact, approached another freelancer to take the column over (They declined, and the column will now indeed be written in-house), placing a question mark over the claim of an ailing contributor’s budget.
Drinnan's claim that "[Hansford] has had differences of opinion with Stirling during much of that time" over eggs the pudding somewhat. Pamela and I had a single conversation on the subject, during which I announced my intention to write the climate deniers column and she agreed to it.
At no time was any suggestion raised that I had made any errors in that column, or left the magazine legally exposed.
I cannot prove that I was rolled because of legal posturing by the Climate Science Coalition, and I have never stated that as fact.
What I have stated repeatedly is;
That I was dropped from the Listener column, Ecologic.
That it came less than a fortnight after my column of March 22 about the Climate Science coalition’s financial and ideological links to the Heartland Institute and, by extension, Exxon Mobil.
That it came in the wake of a published call for my dismissal by the President of the Heartland Institute.
That it came in the wake of a threatened complaint to the Press Council and alleged threats of legal action by the Climate Science Coalition.
That The Listener agreed on a settlement with the Climate Change Coalition that gave the CSC the right of reply published this week.
That the Listener did not inform me of the bringing of the Press Council complaint.
That I was not informed of the letter from The Heartland Institute calling for my removal, nor given a right of reply.
That I was not informed of the Listener's decision to give the CSC right of reply on behalf of my own column.
That both reasons I was given for my axing proved to be unsubstantiated.
That my subsequent request for the truth of the matter was never replied to.
That I was told that “We stand behind our columnists.”
Given this concert of circumstances, and the artifice surrounding my axing, it is valid to ask questions of the Listener and of the Climate Science Coalition about the nature and terms of their negotiations.
The implications for the independence of the media, and for the public interest, are too great not to.
Perhaps these events WERE entirely unrelated. But if they were not, editors, journalists and readers alike have cause for concern.