You miss the point Peter. This blog represents my opinions, not those of an undisclosed, or disclosed-if-you-know-where-to-dig special friends paying me to write things that might be advantageous to them. I have had no special funding from any third party paying me to write Air Con. My books and magazine are commercial projects yes, just as anyone else earning a wage, and stand or fall on their merits. I could have made a fortune in PR. I chose not to.

You're kidding, they make chardonnay flavoured beer now?

I see you don't deny the chardonnay bit or the handwringing. As for being accused of being "left wing", RoarPrawn beat me to it, sadly: "Patrick Smellie is left of the totem pole as well"

And Patrick...on second thoughts before you decamp you can demonstrate your superior knowledge of climate science by answering those questions above. That'll determine whether you are a hack or a journalist. Mobile email sent via Palm Treo

And Patrick...perhaps before you go you can demonstrate how informed you are on climate change by answering the questions above Mobile email sent via Palm Treo

Patrick...they've already admitted they muted me. Go back to your liberal chardonnay set handwringing. Being attacked by you is like being savaged by Noddy. Mobile email sent via Palm Treo

David...I'm mobile (albeit at a service station) in the wops...so not near my computer...but what then is the point of talking about a 1000 year residence time? The other studies (and I've read a few) all use the phrase (residence time) which you are now indicating is being redefined...even since TAR. You seem to be suggesting this is how long a net surplus amount of CO2 will take to be reabsorbed...but the latest studies appear to show your interpretation is wrong. If far more CO2 is being reabsorbed by the biosphere...that would appear to contradict one of Archer's previous assertions about the airborne fraction..and undermine the fundamentals of AGW theory. It might not take 1000 years to be soaked up at all... I'm still waiting for answers to the other questions arising from yesterday's presentation...by the way. Mobile email sent via Palm Treo

There's a big difference between asking a leading question...which most interviewers do to draw their subjects out of their shells...and simply requesting a quote that says "X". The English Palin comparison was a moment of levity in the interview...and not relevant to your point. Getting the Brethren to answer questions was like pulling teeth... I would add however there is a huge difference between an extended verbatim I/v that is totally transparent...and putting words in someone's mouth for occasional supporting quotes. The latter is not transparent and can be highly manipulative. A bit like faking hockey stick data in a science paper. Mobile email sent via Palm Treo

You don't even have to go back a thousand years...one peer reviewed study this year confirmed Greenland was 30 percent warmer than now back in the 1930s.

Yes and no. I take your point about TVNZ's prima facie self-sustainability, but as a former TVNZ employee and also the author of "Beating Big Brother" on the TV licence fee, I would add that licence fees and ongoing NZ on Air payments provided a substantial subsidy to the state broadcaster... Steve Joyce, in his RadioWorks days, benefitted from the TAB's rescue of Radio Pacific by heavily investing in transmission infrastructure in return for a committment to broadcast racing, so there is precedent for this kind of public/private partnership. Like I said, I'm not fussed one way or the other, but I think to demonstrate that the TPK underwrite is wrong one first needs to demonstrate that promoting Maori culture via broadcasting to a captive audience is either a) outside TPK's jurisdiction or b) not going to be achievable. Government agencies spend millions of dollars every day in the private sector to achieve various aims or fulfil various contracts. The fact that this one is a broadcaster is irrelevant, isn't it? This argument is independent of the wider issue of whether broadcasters should be state-funded or not.