What a shame for Bolt that Amanda and HG no longer work for the ABC.
If they did, he could vituperate about how it's all a left-wing conspiracy to waste hard-earned tax-payers' money... and in doing so avoid answering the substance underneath their humour.
Funny they should mention Fox news like that. I have been commenting on a fox news story over at desmog blog.
The Fox news fans remind me of the Andrew Bolt fans. They get just as worked up & lash out. They don't like to be told they are not hearing the truth from their idols. One even wanted to take it outside.
My first disclaimer - I don't think the video is actually all that funny; Greg and Amanda have done better work before.
However, Andrew Bolt posted about this dismissively this morning with the post headed "Just the facts would shut us up", saying that if only scientists would stick to telling skeptics the facts, they might be convinced.
Funnily enough, either Andrew Bolt, or his blog-minders who moderate his comment threads, appear to no longer be letting through my not-overly-long, only mildly sarcastic, very specific invitation for him to deal with the fact that Anthony Watts made a wildly inaccurate estimate to his face only 12 months ago, now disproved by Watts' own paper. (Sorry for linking to myself):
Fact-seeker Andrew Bolt has his limits, it appears.
How many denialists can fit on the head of pin? depends which part you are talking about.
Good effort from Amanda and Greig. The aim is not to be overly funny, it is satire. One aspect of Bolt they missed is that his operation is about delivering what his target audience want to hear.
It's a stupid man reassuring a stupid audience while shooting the messenger.
Steve, yes I loved Bolt's "Just the facts would shut us up".
No matter how many time the facts are supplied you end up in a continuous loop of,
>Here are the facts you asked for
>>Just show me the evidence
>Once more, here is the evidence
>>Just show me the evidence, just one bit of evidence
>Here is a complete history of the principles of planetary climate.
>>prove it is catastrophic
(As though anything short of a scenario that completely surpasses our ability to adapt is not worth mitigating)
And a parody of Bolt's climate postings - amongst other things:
[Just the facts would shut us up](http://theclotfactor.blogspot.com/2011/05/just-facts-would-shut-us-up.h…)
Andrew Bolt wants "the facts"?
Andrew and his friends, like Alan Jones, can't handle the facts.
Shinsko - thanks, that was worth the visit. The perfect response to Bolt's drivel is light parody. He doesn't warrant anything more serious.
The problem with this kind of satire is that it's not really satire. Satire ridicules in part by hyperbole yet this is too close to what The Blot does to count as hyperbole. It's really just Clarke and Dawe with Pickhaver and Keller quoting something that The Blot has said and done at one time or another.
Certainly, keller's voice and tone just isn't as offensive as the Blot.
Maybe next time we could have A Blot and T Bliar.
This is really flat. The idea seems to be that if they get two funny people together funny things will happen. This is a fallacy.
Andrew Bolt is entitled to his own facts.
On a promo for his show he said all he did was state the facts and some people didn't like it. Staggering level of arrogance.
This kind of stuff makes me long for a visit to Australia.
That was worth my 6 cents per day. But then again, I can watch the Bolt Report for free and it only has 10 times your audience.
..and Bob The Builder got 10 times the audience Bolt got.
Your point is...?
(At the risk of feeding a troll) No, you didn't watch Blot for free, and it costs you a damn sight more than 6 cents a day as well.
Is this the worst Bolt post ever? (its a tough field)
[Climate change is real, but Gillardâs claims are disgracefully false](http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…)
> ...and it costs you a damn sight more than 6 cents a day as well.
What price lost IQ points?
#3: Steve, yes, it's funny, isn't it, that Dolt or his blog censors do not like any comment that seems to cut close to the bone. Just the other day, I tried to post a mildly worded comment at his Herald-Sun blog to the effect that he seemed to have nothing to offer other than copy-and-paste regurgitation of pieces by Ted Lapkin. No luck. Censored. Of course, I could have gone on, to try and press home a case arguing for Dolt's complete lack of ability to do original research, but what would have been the point? Censored.
Thanks for that. I am now officially stupider as I followed the link the the Bolty story and THEN made the terrible mistake of going to the Joanne Nova site.
Trying to relate her post on the Second Law to anything that is actually in a physics book really did my head in.
Warning - your brain will attempt to escape after reading this:
Tim - Do you think the Second Law post can top the Worst Post on Climate Change Ever? Especially as Louis seems to have dropped off the planet, we need a successor.