- Bishop Hill blog - Fred Pearce at the RI
Fred Pearce started with how the Climategate story broke for him, one Friday lunchtime, with the blogosphere getting an immediate head start on the story, compared to the legacy media. Some of the interpretations were highly misleading, especially to anyone who knew (or thought the knew) the field at all. He then called Jones to hear his side of the story, and Jones apparently blamed the Russians, which was a claim repeated by others for whatever reason. Pearce unfortunately didn't expand on the reasoning for suspecting the Russians, either in the debate or in his book. Jones said that regardless of who did it, he had critics that would likely cause trouble. Pearce then discussed the UEA's response, imposing a media blackout and suggesting nobody should be dealing in 'stolen property'. In Pearce's view, and mine, the UEA's response was misguided.The Hockey Schtick: Economist: Average family needs to spend $5665/yr on carbon taxes to avoid fireball planet
...
Roger Harrabin defended the BBC's reporting. On TV reporting and "hide the decline", TV is limited in length so journalists had to explain complex subjects in 300-350 words: images or key statements are needed. He raised the merging of the blogosphere and legacy media, where blog articles are lifted directly into newspapers. Given the rise of the blogosphere, the BBC needs to reflect that change in society.
...
It was an odd debate given there was no real balance in the panel. All were really pro-AGW supporters, and I think it was telling what wasn't mentioned.
According to a delusional study published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the price of carbon needs to be $59 per ton in order to cripple the economy to the point where carbon emissions drop to the goal of the Copenhagen accord. Given that the average family of four is responsible for 211,680 lbs or 96 metric tons of CO2 per year, at the "required" $59/ton, the carbon tax cost for the average family would have to be $5664/yr to avoid the fictitious problem of AGW.
No comments:
Post a Comment