Climate Conversation Group

Taking the heat out of global warming

For the first time in history, people shouting “the end is nigh” are somehow
the sane ones, while those of us who say it is not are now the lunatics.

  • rss
  • Home
  • Open threads
    • Climate – how to use open threads
      • Meteorology
      • Global warming
      • Climate science
        • Climate Models
        • Papers
        • Atmosphere
        • Temperature records
        • Energy and fuel
        • Solar
        • Ocean heat content
        • Radiation, radiative imbalance
        • Sea levels
        • Ocean acidification
        • Polar regions, glaciers and ice
      • Regions
        • Europe
        • Asia
        • South America
        • Africa
        • Australia
        • UK
        • USA
        • Pacific
        • New Zealand
      • News
      • Controversy and scandal
        • Skeptical Science
      • Disproving AGW
      • Economics
    • Politics
      • ETS and carbon taxes
    • UN
      • IPCC organisation
      • IPCC politics
      • IPCC science
      • NIPCC
  • Opinion polls
    • SckSckSck
    • Your view of CO2
    • Collective noun for icebergs
    • Stop the ETS
  • Climate of Freedom Tour
  • Files
    • Climate Realists
      • Newsletter #17 6 May 2010
      • Newsletter #16 28 Apr 2010
      • Newsletter #6 11 Feb 2010
      • Newsletter #4 2011
    • News releases
      • February 8, 2010
      • December 20, 2010
    • Wind turbine failures
  • About

Herald swiftly rights wrong

Richard Treadgold | July 17, 2012

The NZ Herald yesterday covered our suit against NIWA. But the heading was:

Global warming sceptics accuse Niwa of temperature deception

And the first paragraph said:

“A group of global warming sceptics has accused Niwa of deception over the issue…”

But this wasn’t true. Our suit says nothing about NIWA’s motivation in producing errors in the national temperature record, much less accuses them of deception.

I emailed Abby Gillies, the reporter:

Hi Abby,

Thanks for covering the Coalition’s suit against NIWA. I should complain, though, about your allegation: “A group of global warming sceptics has accused Niwa of deception over the issue…”

That is not the case. We don’t use the word deception anywhere. I don’t think we make any comment about the motivation that might have led NIWA to make mistakes with the temperature record.

I would appreciate a retraction at your earliest opportunity.

Cheers,
Richard Treadgold,
Climate Conversation Group.

Lucy replied a few hours later.

Good afternoon Richard, your email to Abby Gillies has been passed to me for a response.
We have considered the points you have made in the email regarding the use of the word deception in the introduction to our story yesterday and think you have a fair point in that the word implies some intent, which is not present.
We will publish a clarification and transmit it on our news wire with an advisory that any publications that used our original story should carry the clarification.
I trust this is satisfactory.
It’s a fascinating case so far and it will be interesting to see what the outcome will be.
Thanks for your interest in our coverage of the hearing.
Regards,

Lucy Bennett
Filing editor
APNZ News Service

In a cute postscript to this little story, the Herald outdid itself.

I went back to the article for this posting and saw that, while they’d changed the body, they’d overlooked the headline. It still contained the word “deception”.

Did I get angry? No. I emailed Lucy: “I’ve spotted the changes. That’s brilliant, thanks. Would you care to remove the word deception from the headline, please? It’s quite prominent.”

Lucy, bless her, not only obliged, but her reply hit my desk not 60 seconds after I had pressed Send. When I immediately reloaded the Herald story the headline had been changed.

Outstanding.

I’m happy to praise them on this occasion for fairness and promptness beyond the call of duty, though I have often criticised them for their oddly dismissive attitude towards the scientific examination of global warming.

Categories
General
Tags
Court action, NIWAgate, NZ Herald, NZCSC
Comments rss
Comments rss
Trackback
Trackback

« Four go a-court, with a hey, nonny-no No high court forecourt report »

4 Responses to “Herald swiftly rights wrong”

  1. Doug Proctor says:
    July 18, 2012 at 7:03 am

    How clearly this story shows that the news media is looking for grab-you points, not facts: news coverage is about excitement, drama and entertainment. And education, if there is room to be filled.

    Reply
  2. Richard C (NZ) says:
    July 18, 2012 at 8:56 am

    Good work keeping the story real RT, and a commendable response.

    Amazing how the choice of a word makes all the difference – words have power.

    Reply
  3. Richard C (NZ) says:
    July 18, 2012 at 9:10 am

    New headline:-

    Niwa breaching its duties with figures – sceptics group

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10820276

    I would have thought “climate science” group rather than “sceptics” group given the “CS” in NZCSET but that might be asking too much concession from the seller.

    Reply
    • Richard C (NZ) says:
      July 18, 2012 at 9:24 am

      The body of the report seems to resume normal reporting duties.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

buy FastProof now

          • Climate Conversation Group •
   • more than 1,400,000 visits a year
   • over 7,600,000 hits a year
               — join the Conversation —

Hot off the press

  • Wild Bill McKibben: “Outlaws of physics”
  • Relationship between greenhouse gases and global temperature
  • Sun sets on solar subsidies
  • Strike three for TVNZ
  • Climate delegates in dark
  • We won’t be dissuaded from our global goal
  • Measure, for measures are better
  • Warmists finally admit temperature is not warming
  • The best way to post comments
  • Climate doctrine crushed
  • It’s climate denial all right
  • Anthropogenic ocean heating Part 1
  • No evidence no reason for complacency
  • Strike two for TVNZ
  • GWPF, RS talk climate change
  • Painting wanting rebuttal
  • Emotional knowledge
  • Global warming less than we thought
  • Climate porkies from TV One
  • Renwick doesn’t blame AGW for drought

Latest comments

  • Richard Treadgold on Disproving AGW
  • Richard C (NZ) on Disproving AGW
  • Richard C (NZ) on Disproving AGW
  • Andy on Wild Bill McKibben: “Outlaws of physics”
  • Andy on Wild Bill McKibben: “Outlaws of physics”
  • Andy on UK
  • Mike Jowsey on Wild Bill McKibben: “Outlaws of physics”
  • Andy on Wild Bill McKibben: “Outlaws of physics”
  • Richard Treadgold on Wild Bill McKibben: “Outlaws of physics”
  • Richard Treadgold on Wild Bill McKibben: “Outlaws of physics”
  • Andy on Wild Bill McKibben: “Outlaws of physics”
  • Mike Jowsey on Wild Bill McKibben: “Outlaws of physics”
  • Richard C (NZ) on UK
  • Mack on Wild Bill McKibben: “Outlaws of physics”
  • Andy on Controversy and scandal
  • Andy on Wild Bill McKibben: “Outlaws of physics”
  • Prat watch #11: don’t fone us… on Wild Bill McKibben: “Outlaws of physics”
  • Andy on UK
  • Alexander K on Wild Bill McKibben: “Outlaws of physics”
  • Andy on Wild Bill McKibben: “Outlaws of physics”

Chuck a buck

If you like our work, throw us a bone, friend. The smallest amount is huge.
Thank you!


Click to get your own widget

Tags

Activists AGW Air temperature Air temperature Alarm Alternative energy Australia Carbon dioxide Carbon Sense Carbon trading CCG blog Christopher Monckton Climate Conversation Group Climate research Climate science Court action Data quality Disproving AGW Economics Energy supply Environment ETS General Global temperature Global warming Hot Topic IPCC Journalism New Zealand NIWA NIWAgate NZCSC NZ Herald NZ temperature records Oceans Politics Royal Society Sceptics Science bias Scientists Sea levels United Nations USA Watts Up With That What is the evidence

Admin

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

Climate change blogroll

  • Bishop Hill
  • Carbon Sense Coalition
  • Climate Audit—a science blog
  • Climate Debate Daily
  • Climate Depot
  • Climate Etc. (Judith Curry)
  • Climate Realists
  • Global warming at a glance
  • Jo Nova
  • Kiwi Thinker
  • No Tricks Zone
  • NZ Climate Science Coalition
  • Science of Doom
  • Watts Up With That

 

July 2012
M T W T F S S
« Jun   Aug »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Previous posts

Oil prices

Reality mocks models

models v. reality
Latest climate models v. reality

As the models continue to leave actual temperature readings in their dust, sizeable warming halted about 1995 — although it might resume at any time. It must hasten to have any hope of catching up with the predictions.

If you claim warming continues, we want evidence of continued warming — eminently reasonable. Making us wait for 17 years for that evidence invites us to doubt you.

Claiming that warming hasn't stopped is the same as claiming it has — and both are ridiculous, for nobody knows the future. The best you can do is describe the past.

Click graph for larger version.

Hot spot fails reality check

IPCC fingerprint
GHG fingerprint missing

About 2000, climate scientists predicted, and the IPCC agreed, that, if the global temperature was strongly influenced by carbon dioxide (or GHG generally), there'd be a unique "fingerprint" publicising that influence high over the tropics — a tropospheric hot spot. So they started looking for it — and they haven't given up.

Click graph for larger version.

 

rss Comments rss valid xhtml 1.1 design by jide powered by Wordpress get firefox