Wednesday 2 May 2012

Nice to know I'm not the only one who feels this way

I almost choked on my latte this morning when I got to the Readers' Ed section of the SMH - lots of readers got all steamed up about the photos the SMH has been using to illustrate climate change/carbon tax stories, and the editor has even issued an edict about how they're going to caption these things in future.

The thing I found interesting is that Judy Prisk did have a look a the original photo and questioned the photographer about whether it had been manipulated - it hadn't. That's reassuring. However, I think the SMH is starting to get the message that its readers don't appreciate the pudding being over egged when it comes to climate change stories. Or should I rephrase that as "we're all about to die - how climate change is producing mutant killer ants".

I wonder if anyone at the SMH sees the irony in this paragraph:

First, the photographer did not manipulate the image in any way. He says he shot a series of four in the middle of the day using F22, which means a small aperture made the images razor sharp. And the reason he stopped to take the pics on the way to another job was because the scene looked so unusual. He presumes the darkness of the vapour was because it was heavy with moisture.

Hmm. The cloud was full of moisture. Yet it was used to illustrate a story about invisible CO2. The stupid - it burns!


Rob said...

If we're going to talk about mistaken, deceptive or misleading conduct how about your discussion of solar economics where you suggested 5kw solar systems cost $50,000 before delivery and installation, when in fact they are available delivered and installed by australian retailers for less than $12,000. Admittedly they have come down since you made the post, they were available for about $15,000 at the time.
Some examples:

If that was a genuine error then surely it's only appropriate you correct the record and acknowledge that as you pointed out at the time once they cost below $20,000 the economics are heavily in favor of solar, even without subsidies these systems are all below $16,000.

Anonymous said...

Are you kidding me, a 5kw solar panel for $12,000 and you think that's a good price?

A 5kw panel couldn't power my fridge for a day. I wouldn't go near a solar panel at that price, if it were $100 I might think about it. But the repair costs from the roof leaks might be more than the $12k panel, and when I go to sell my house the reduced property values could cost me another $50,000. Solar panels are such a stupid idea.

Rob said...

Wow, way to make yourself look ignorant anonymous, a 5 kw system is a fairly large solar system which will produce most of the power needed to run an average home. An average fridge freezer comb will use up to 1500kwh per year, the 5kw system will produce over 7,600 kwh per year. The vale of the electricity produced by a 5 kw solar system is a little over $2,000 annually so I reckon your suggested $100 is a bit low. Your suggestion that a solar array which makes a home close to energy neutral would reduce a homes value by $50,000 is breathtaking in its ignorance.