or U-Tube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idTHcot8tLc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLrWZK1rP3g

The media does run campaigns that have no basis in truth.
Take the Pauline Hansen case.
She announced publically, I heard it mtself, that she was not leaving
Australia but was going on a holiday to New Zealand and the UK.
When she returned was thinking of moving south.

Just three days ago the BBC repeated the story that she was migrating
to the UK. Perhaps this is what happened to her political campaign.

I have just received a copy of the US Senate enquiry into the CRU
at East Anglia Uni, the IPCC and the US climate scientists.
I don't have the URL for it, and I have only just had a quick look
but it must be available on the US Senate gov website. It is 84 pages.
Worth a read I think.

Examinator, we understand that you want the topic to be about the role of the media, but you shoot yourself in the foot with a bloody big gun when you say,

” No it's not a joke you should really read a bit wider The herald sun, The Aus, even the courier mail is prone to contrarianism it sells papers. Alan Jones and his ilk , Monckton, Plimer, All the gates none of which have real scientific substance or sense but they make good copy.
Look at Glaciergate The flaw was the 35 year prediction *not* that the eastern and Himalayan glaciers that feed the major Chinese/ Indian aren't actually retreating. Tat bit doesn't make interesting copy.”

You see, silly old buggers like me think that those you choose to denigrate actually do have science on their side. The Fairfax Group, Channels Nine and Seven and the whole of the ABC only present one side of the argument. We actually want debate on the subject.

One of the Rudd Govts. biggest mistakes was that it did not encourage debate, then it lied about their science. Are you aware that in the UK the school teachers, when showing Al Gore’s film Inconvenient Truths, are required to stop the film 35 times to point out to the students lies, mistakes, half-truths and unresolved science so that their students actually learn the truth? In Australia our teachers do not have to point out the lies etc. It is taught as gospel.

Sen Wong continually says that sceptics do not believe in climate change. I have never met a real scientist who does not believe in climate change. That would be stupid, would it not?

(continued from previous post)

We need Allan Jones, Monckton, Plimer, Carter and Kininmonth and others to put their views forward, because one of the biggest lies is that the IPCC is a group of scientists that arrive at peer-reviewed conclusions. The president of the IPCC is a railway engineer! Phil Jones lied about his science and was found out. Yvo de Boer failed to get his communist world govt. up at the last IPCC Copenhagen meeting (see the United Nation Framework Committee on Climate Change, September 2009, page 18) so de Boer resigned.

When did Rudd tell us that he was going to Copenhagen to ratify the UNFCCC’s manifesto? When did the Fairfax Group (The Age and the SMH) or Channel Seven or Channel Nine or the ABC report on this manifesto to form a new world government that has the power to tax sovereign nations and even fine individuals and organisations within sovereign nations?

It was Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun who warned us.

Your article and the topic tell us more about your politics than your ethics.

Geoffrey Kelley

At least there are some media organisations that are prepared to
publish anything relevant.
Here is the Q & A session the BBC had with Prof Phil Jones of CRU.
Question B mentioned previously is below;

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no
statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995
to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not
significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is
quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical
significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer
periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Here is the URL for the interview.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

The only place I have seen this mentioned locally was on ABC Q&A
last night and it got over ridden by the general clutter of noise
of the AGW audience when no warming since 1995 was mentioned.

Strange they were putting down the finding of one of their own !

Spindoc old mate,
With all due respect when it comes to me in your generalization you are talking rubbish. I'd even dispute your generalization.

I've been a trenchant critic of the capitalist driven media for the better part of 26 years. Especially when it comes to anything important. Check it out.
AGW is the latest example of why.

This article and the research behind it proves my point, with a detail study.

I resisted the term AGW because it is sensationalised and misses the essential point, Preferring the more accurate less sensational ACC.
I've written several times on both this issue and been ignored or rubbished.

I do believe the pro advocates are partially to blame by latching on to the publicity without any serious attempt to explain the issues clearly. The debate has been run largely by the contrarian main stream media.

I still reason that most people don't really understand the nature of science theory in its self. I reason this is because the media *sells the sizzle* the steak is not of interest.If this wasn't so there wouldn't be any need for the parasitic advertising industry. and political elections would be far less costly.

I still say the pro advocate have simply seen the error of their ways and trying a new strategy i.e. NASA's new (yesterday)
http://climate.nasa.gov/warmingworld. web site