A wee while ago, a fellow named Maugeri, produced a paper. He hides behind the Harvard name, for respectability, but the outfit is a funded think-tank (read, lobby).
What he produced, was immediately rebutted:
But the ODT, RNZnews, and earlier, Interest.co.nz, chose to put it up. I don’t mindInterest.co – they put up other stuff, and allowe a discussion. I do have a problem with RNZ – no need to please sponsors, and an expectation that they will ascertain the truth. The ODT, of course, have a permanent in-build bias you could drive a bus through, and no apparent peer-review mechanism which holds up an internal mirror. They didn’t use the original article, by the way – but a once-removed (fudge) opinion based on same. As per ODT practice (Dene Mackenzie/Peter Mackintyre) the opinion has a statement-of-fact-appearing headline.
It’s not on line on the ODT site, but here it is:
The bio says it all – a spinner regurgitating spin. The difference is that she doesn’t have ‘truth’ in her mission statement.
ps – this is a better treatment. The reporter is smart enough – honest enough? – to be sceptical.
Being an Aussie, he had better realise that ‘electric cars’ are 80% ‘coal cars’, though. You have to remember what makes the electricity….