Mainstream Media Blocks Factual and Valid Anti Climate Change Comments. Is this media bias?

I left the following comment at http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/7457060/ets-a-balancing-act/

“Before my previous comment got trashed, I was simply pointing out how the costs of ETS will not be confined to 5% rise in electricity and 4c a litre of petrol but will perculate through the whole economy including food and transport and everything else. Then I was pointing out that according the NZ government website, a whole range of industries including cement & glass production will also have extra costs in the form of carbon expenses and will either pass the cost on to the consumer, or if they rely on exports, simply go to the wall (or move offshore) http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/emissions-trading-scheme/participating/industry/”

Well I think you will agree my comment was reasonable but I tried to post this three times on the article at http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/7457060/ets-a-balancing-act/

This article outlines, in a favourable manner to our government, some details of the introduction of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme.

What I earlier tried to say was the fact that it is abject madness to contemplate an ETS anyway, but to do it in the face of an economic recession as well as doing it without the accompaniment of any of our trading partners is simply insanity.

I should also add that NZ is responsible for about 0.1% of carbon emissions so everything is an exercise in futility.

I do not think that NZ has any influence as a world leader, so NZ citizens can only tighten their belts and contemplate a non existant end to the current recession.

Anyway, Yahoo News did not allow my comment, and according to some of the other comments that slipped through before the comments were shut off, many others were having the same problem.

Is the media unbiased in New Zealand.

Not on the Yahoo website it would appear!

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Mainstream Media Blocks Factual and Valid Anti Climate Change Comments. Is this media bias?”

  1. cmb Says:

    Really? And what would that cost be in Dollars then?

    — An infantile question. You’re the “Economist”, or so you tell us. Have you once again done zero research on your topic?

    Enough to break a few economies perhaps?

    — Nope, not in any way. And you cannot show that it would be.

    http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/may2007/pi20070514_179649.htm

    — Can you estimate additional costs related to national security?

    http://www.cfr.org/publication/14862/climate_change_and_national_security.html

    It would be a silly thing to spend so much when AGW is without reasonable proof though, dont you think?

    — AGW has been confirmed sufficiently to mandate remedial action, including by the United States and other governments for security purposes – and no national government or scientific society on earth refutes it.

    There is simply no valid scientific evidence ruling out CO2 as a major player in global warming.

  2. cmb Says:

    The cost of fixing AGW is widely understood to be only 1/3 to 1/5th of the cost of allowing it to proceed.

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      Really? And what would that cost be in Dollars then? Enough to break a few economies perhaps?
      It would be a silly thing to spend so much when AGW is without reasonable proof though, dont you think?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: