Climate change:

David Hand writes: Re. “Rundle: Where is the Mao, the Lenin for climate change?” (yesterday, item 5). I have finally realised what Crikey has been up to these past few weeks.  You’re sending us all up!

I had thought that there was a concern in your editorial ranks that “denialists” getting too much airtime.  I read Guy Rundle’s piece on the propaganda war yesterday and the light bulb came on.  All this time I was admonishing you to simply put the science in front of us because I thought you were afraid the public weren’t taking climate change seriously but Guy’s piece let the cat out of the bag.

It was a very entertaining item, especially the bit about needing people trained in the art of propaganda and recruitment rather than those of a scientific background.  Maybe you let him go too far and gave us the punch line?

I do feel for those readers who thought you were serious.

Wayne Smith writes: Here is an article from Australasian Science by Ros Gleadow, Jan/Feb 2010, that looks at the growth of food crops in air with carbon dioxide concentrations of 700ppm (the worst case prediction for atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in 50 years time).

Ian Plimer (and countless scientifically illiterate deniers of anthropomorphic climate change) has argued that carbon dioxide is “… not a pollutant, it is plant food”. Well, we are animals, not plants! The research in the above article should be the final nail in any arguments for “business as usual” carbon dioxide pollution, as it goes beyond global warming or climate change theories.

The implications are that the food crops that form the staple diet of billions of the world’s people will contain: less protein; more toxins (including cyanide) and, in the case of root crops such as cassava (which feeds about 750 million people) and potato, dramatically lower yields. The implications for grazing cattle and poultry meat production are similarly dire.

Climatic effects on food security may cause arguments until catastrophic climate change becomes a reality (or not). However, experimental research on food production under forecast atmospheric changes should be relatively simple and the conclusions should be more certain.

Shouldn’t we be looking more closely at food security for future populations before being so gung-ho with growth policies that ensure vastly increased populations? Also, if the conclusions in this article are correct, shouldn’t we be reducing carbon dioxide emissions post haste, lest we ensure widespread famine in just a few decades?

The Oz and Crikey:

Matt Andrews writes: Re. “Chris Mitchell on pervasive PR, press releases, and paywalls” (Tuesday, item 6). While I applaud Chris Mitchell’s willingness to engage with the results of the Crikey “Spinning the Media” investigation, I have to take issue with the (Crikey) editorial comment that The Australian is “the only truly vibrant, intelligent newspaper in the country”.

Any newspaper that adopts such a spectacularly partisan stance against climate science cannot be described as “intelligent”;  “jaw-droppingly obtuse” would be closer to the mark, and that’s being charitable.

For some darkly funny yet depressing reading, see Tim Lambert’s “The Australian’s war on science” series of articles at his Deltoid site.

Myer:

Stephanie Puls writes: Re. “Myer over-priced as shareholders find out the hard way” (yesterday, item 22). I was interested to read about Myer in yesterday’s Crikey, having been at Myer Doncaster (Vic) on Wednesday.

As I left the store, empty-handed having left what I had intended to buy on the unattended counter at which I had waited for around 20 minutes, I thought to myself that I was glad I didn’t purchase any shares because for so many years now, Myer has just been unable to get the fundamentals right. Their customer service is appalling one visit after another and I for one am giving up.

All the money spent on Jennifer Hawkins-driven advertising could be better spent putting a bunch of 16 year olds on the registers. The advertising dollars spent getting you in the door are wasted if they won’t put on enough staff to take your money when you want to purchase something.

I just don’t get how they can keep getting that wrong.

TV ratings:

Richard Hamilton writes: Re. “Last night’s TV ratings” (yesterday, item 20). Glenn Dyer is a fantastic economics and business correspondent, providing clear and insightful analysis day after day. However, his TV Ratings columns are increasingly painful to read with such a narrow focus on statistics.

Having underplayed and dismissed the introduction of the second digital channels, he continues to demonstrate no real understanding for television as an art form, instead focussing on what documentaries are aired and when, and dismissing out-of-hand anything deemed unworthy.

Some of us watch our TV to enjoy ourselves and relax, not to be lectured.

Maybe someone with a bit of passion for the medium could take over?