Open Mike Tuesday 19th November

1. 60,000 people across Australia protesting the Abbot Government’s plan to repeal the carbon tax.

   A pretty significant event, one would think.

   http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-17/thousands-rally-across-australia-for-national-day-climate-action/5097536

   Well not according to Stuff.co.nz

   Twenty reports on events in Australia on Stuff not one breath that such a huge protest rally had taken place.

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/

   Though we did learn that an Australian cop had got angry at a cyclist for not wearing a helmet, that an Australian school boy made a clever speech, That Julia Guillard wishes Kevin Rudd well, that Chappelle Corby’s brother did not go to jail, That Australian police recovered some stolen cheese.

   The NZ Herald wasn’t much better with 15 Australian news stories. Not one mention of the 60,000 cimate protesters. But we did get 10 puff pieces on how wonderful Australia is visit encouraging New Zealand tourists to go there.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/australia/news/headlines.cfm?l_id=15

2. Climate Change. The concept is simple. We all understand it, (Or should). Extra CO2 released by burning fossil fuels (or refining metals), is putting a sheet of glass over the world. That is why it is sometimes called the Green House effect. and we all know how a Greenhouse works. Most of us at one time have stepped inside one.

   Even the climate change deniers understand the concept, even though they claim it is wrong, or is being overstated.

   So how do we account for this story in the Herald by Herald journalist Dave Burgess.

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9433516/The-battle-between-steel-and-wood

   In his report on different building systems Dave Burgess writes that houses made with steel framing are bad because they “….emit loads of ozone-depleting carbon dioxide.”

   This new theory being advanced by Dave Burgess as to the danger posed by raised CO2 levels, is so divorced from the reality, you have to ask where on earth did he get this idea?

   Has Dave Burgess been living under a rock?

   When even small school children understand the concept.

   When deniers understand the concept even as they argue against it.

   Is Dave Burgess being deliberately obtuse?

   Is Dave Burgess trying to ignore, and discredit, the science that that tells us, that we are rapidly destroying our biosphere by heedlessly burning fossil fuels?

   Is he making a subtle attempt at misdirection to confuse the issue?

   Is this journalist Dave Burgess a closet climate change denier applying some sort of clever mental Ju Jitsu against the science?

   Is this a new form of unintelligible climate change denying?

   Really in all honesty, could anyone actually be this ignorant?

Comments are closed.