The Australian's War on Science has continued. Fortunately, I am able to outsource the refuting.
First, Nexus 6 takes apart a Tuesday editorial where the Australian foolishly allows itself to be swindled by a British TV show. (Mind you the Australian came back on Thursday with another editorial the next day where they repeated the same bogus arguments again.)
And on Friday there was another anti-global warming rant in the Australian, with Frank Devine coming out against peer review. Ian Musgrave demolishes Devine here.
Seems like the Australian is trying to make up in quantity what their arguments lack in quality.
Update: And they published another anti-science piece in today's paper. This is by their environment reporter Matthew Warren (previous job: PR for coal miners who trots out the usual skeptics: de Frietas, Carter, Lindzen etc and the usual misrepresentation ofthe IPCC report (no, it does not put an upper bound on sea level rise this century).
Your link to Musgraves demolition of Devine leads to Devines story in the Australian.
For what the BBC think of TGGWS - The Now Show 16/3/07 BBC Radio 4
Thamk goodness I didn't see Tuesdays editorial. Too much concentrated sillyness in one week would hvae depressed me. Anyway, my article is here
Oh no, they are at it again! The Australian has an article in the Science and Nature section of the Saturday Australian pushing the solar connection. Can't I read my paper in peace without woo intruding? (Sorry about the typos above)
Thanks guthrie, - I fixed it.
Thanks Ian, I added an update.
"PR for cool miners"? How Gibsonian!
Yeah, it's a typo joke - sorry.
I think that your constant attacks on Andrew Bolt are creating a fascade that your science degree is somehow related to climate studies,
First of all you fail to reference your rebuttals to arguments;
You fail to mention what you are doing to help the enviroment, while preaching that "We should do whatever we can" (hypocritical if you ask me);
So I think that you should stop reading out of Flannery's bible, and start being critical of what you read.
Err Paul, Andrew Bolt doesn't even write for the Australian. If I spent my time correcting all the stuff Bolt gets wrong, I wouldn't have time to write about anything else.
I don't bother with Bolt's stuff anymore. His juvenile, divisive style of writing doesn't change anybody's mind about anything. Bolt sees and writes everything through the prism of hard Right ideology, and if you don't share that ideology (and, fortunately, most people don't) you aren't going to be swayed by his views, whether you check their factuality or not.
Pretty much the same goes for the Oz editorial, so I'll probably give up on that now - I doubt hardly anyone reads it anyway.
Matthew Warren's article is another matter though. He clearly hasn't bothered to read even the AR4 summery, and has no understanding of what is accepted as basic climate science. He repeats De Freitas' claim as true that it is IPCC dogma that [CO2] has a linear rather than logarithmic relationship with forcing.
Just another shill, I guess.
You've lost count (and who could blame you?). This is AWoS VI, not AWoS V.
Ack. I blame the roman numeral system.
I think that your constant attacks on Andrew Bolt are creating a fascade that your science degree is somehow related to climate studies, First of all you fail to reference your rebuttals to arguments; You fail to mention what you are doing to help the enviroment, while preaching that "We should do whatever we can" (hypocritical if you ask me); So I think that you should stop reading out of Flannery's bible, and start being critical of what you read.
"and start being critical of what you read"
apart from anything written by Andrew Bolt.