Climate Conversation Group

TV Works in writing today acknowledged our complaint. They have referred it to their Complaints Committee and say “a formal response will be forwarded to you” after the committee has considered it. Under the guidelines on the BSA web site, they have 20 working days to do this. Then we take it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority if their response is unsatisfactory. So probably nothing more will happen until January.

If you missed it, you can see our letter of complaint on the CCG web site. You can also view the video of the original news story on the TV3 web site. Have a look — for anyone interested in journalism it’s alarming. For anyone interested in global warming it’s also alarming. It’s just generally alarming.

We don’t have to tolerate poor reporting, whether it’s about global warming or anything else. We deserve the truth and we deserve to be treated as intelligent beings—both of which principles this item ignored. If you don’t believe that, check it out and judge for yourself. Then let us know.

In fact, let us know your thoughts on all of this. What do you think of the complaint and the grounds for complaining? Maybe you disagree? If so, why? Maybe you agree? So why is that? You’ll encourage us if you tell us! Leave a comment below.

But you could go further. You could, if you wanted, contribute an article here (from any point of view—we want to emphasise that). That would be delightful. Get in touch with me by email to richard [at] climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz. We don’t mind whether you “believe” in AGW or not, just whether you can write sensibly about your opinion on some aspect of global warming science, the latest research or field data, or so-called “carbon” trading, taxes, industry or trade repercussions, etc.

Not everybody agrees with the hypothesis of dangerous anthropogenic global warming. In some quarters, that earns a person the title of “global warming sceptic”, usually with the same tone as one might say “member of the Nazi Party”. A scientific approach, of course, absolutely requires scepticism at every step—it’s one of the oldest principles of scientific enquiry. So it’s odd that the term “sceptic” is now used pejoratively. Anyway, if you disagree with the hypothesis, or if you agree, why not say so? Or is global warming too hard to understand? Or too time-consuming to research? Do you have questions you just can’t find answers to? Ask us. We’ve done a lot of research and we’re pleased to help and provide references.

Maybe you have some ideas about how to deal with global warming? What do you think of the National government’s newly-announced enquiry into global warming and NZ’s response to it? What about the ending of the ten-year “moratorium” on building new base-load generating stations, and the new government’s stated intention to ease up on the restrictions of the RMA?

We’re keen to hear from members of the group (or other visitors). We want to know what you are interested in, what you’re unsure of, what you don’t approve of and what you believe should happen. Or not happen.