Bolt
tlambert | December 12, 2012You only have to look at the graph below showing sea level rise since 1880 to see that it has accelerated from about 1mm/year at the end of the 19th century to about 3mm/year at present.(from CSIRO).
If you take a closer look at recent sea level rise you’ll see that it has been very consistent, only deviating from the trend line by about 10mm at any time.
So if you were unscrupulous, and wanted to try to make it look like sea level rise had decelerated what could you do? You could split the series at a point where sea level was above the trend line and compare trends before and after. …
tlambert | October 19, 2011Alan Shore is making a complaint to ACMA about Andrew Bolt's July 10 editorial on the Bolt report and is seeking feedback on the draft below. His original complaint to Network Ten is here and their response is here.
The text that follows is by Alan Shore.
It is contended that Mr Andrew Bolt's opening editorial comment aired during the Sunday July 10, 2011 broadcast of The Bolt Report breached clause 4.3.1 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice.
Specifically, Mr Bolt's statement that "for at least a decade the planet has not warmed even though emissions have soared". This…
tlambert | September 30, 2011Andrew Bolt has been held liable of violating the Racial Discrimination Act for writing two columns intended to offend and humiliate several people because they were Aboriginal. Bolt lost because his writing was not done reasonably and in good faith, which we know is characteristic of his work in other areas as well.
The judgement makes interesting reading.
The judge found that Bolt's evidence was not to be trusted:
I am firmly of the view that a safer and more reliable source for discerning Mr Bolt's true motivation is to be found in the contents of the Newspaper Articles themselves rather…
tlambert | June 24, 2011Earlier I wrote:
Shortly after she got the death threat, [Anna-Maria] Arabia was attacked by Andrew Bolt.
This was wrong. Although Bolt's post was date stamped 11:16am, which was after Arabia received the threat, the first comment was at 6:39am so Bolt's [ost appeared then. There was also a 7:56am comment at Pure Poison referencing Bolt's post:
The last time he published a photograph and named a scientist in this way, it resulted in that scientist receiving death threats. I wonder if his thugs can resist the temptation this time...
So it seems that Arabia received the death threat shortly…
tlambert | March 29, 2011Tony Abbott seems to have answered Julia Gillard's question of whether you should get your climate science from reputable climate scientists or Andrew Bolt by going for Andrew Bolt.
Bolt interviwed Tim Flannery who said
"If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over 1000 years."
Bolt argued that this was admission that cutting emissions was useless.
Abbott then seized on the comment by Tim Flannery and claimed that Flannery had admitted that
"It will not make a difference for 1000 years…
tlambert | March 22, 2011Media Watch examines the coverage of climate change on commercial talkback radio. While Ian Plimer and Bob Carter are frequently on talkback radio,
Not one orthodox climate scientist - not one - has been interviewed by any of the climate sceptics on Fairfax stations.
As for 2GB, its management said it didn't have time to respond to our questions. But we've been able to find no evidence that Alan Jones or Chris Smith have interviewed any orthodox climate scientists this year.
Talkback radio personality Andrew Bolt comes back with
Chris Smith: Out of our journey of one kilometre there are…
tlambert | March 19, 2011After arguing that people should trust the scientists about nuclear power, Andrew Bolt is back with a post advancing the claim that
anyone exposed to excess radiation from the nuclear power plants is now probably much less likely to get cancer.
Said claim comes not from a scientist but from Ann Coulter, a creationist.
PZ Myers, who is an actual scientist, writes:
I only know about hormesis from my dabbling in teratology; a pharmacologist or toxicologist would be a far better source. But I know enough about hormesis to tell you that she's wrong. She has taken a tiny grain of truth and mangled…
tlambert | March 15, 2011Andrew Bolt writes
Question: why do people who think their government and scientists would always lie about nuclear power also think green groups would always tell the truth? How can you be so cynical about the one and so gullible with the other?
Why do people who think their government and scientists lie about climate change also think brown groups would always tell the truth? How can you be so cynical about the one and so gullible with the other?
Ben Heard has a good summary of the situation in Japan at Brave New Climate.
tlambert | January 27, 2011Andrew Bolt liked the trick of pointing to the one part of a document that doesn't mention floods and pretending that there is no mention of floods in the whole document so much that he did it again in his column:
The mantra was that global warming meant drought for us, and the 2007 Synthesis Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the Vatican of the warming faith - made no mention of more floods in Australia from rain.
I hope you spotted Bolt's scam. The Synthesis Report summarises the WG1, WG2, and WG3 reports and only has four bullet points about Australia and NZ. It…
tlambert | January 22, 2011Andrew Bolt is desperate to prove that the floods in Queensland had nothing to do with global warming, even though the science suggests that warming will make floods worse. So has fully embraced an argument advanced by hauntingthelibrary:
If warming caused these floods, why didn't warmists predict them?
Two years ago Queensland's warmist Office of Climate Change issued this report on what the state should expect from global warming, and not once did it mention floods. It did predict a slight increase in "extreme" weather events in the north, but not in the south of the state where the worst…
tlambert | January 13, 2011Andrew Bolt thirteen months ago:
Note down the prediction:
David Jones, the head of climate analysis at the Bureau of Meteorology, said yesterday that claims by sceptics the planet was cooling were wrong... Dr Jones said an El Nino event in the Pacific Ocean - linked to hotter, drier conditions in Australia - would have an effect on the world's climate next year. ''There is a significant probability next year will be the globe's warmest year on record.''
NASA:
Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers…
tlambert | January 9, 2011Andrew Bolt may have the worst case of confirmation bias ever seen. To Bolt, whether something is true or not has nothing to do with its accuracy and everything to do with whether it suits him or not. Here in its entirety,
If the evidence were so strong, there'd be no need for such untruths
Dennis Ambler checks the statistics behind recently claims that 97 per cent of climate scientists believe man is heating the planet and finds evidence of some exaggeration:
However a headline of "0.73% of climate scientists think that humans are affecting the climate" doesn't quite have the same ring as…
tlambert | November 4, 2010Andrew Bolt accepts the results of a study published in The Lancet that used random sampling to estimate deaths and came up with a figure of 200,000 per year, about ten times the number you get from a direct count. Actually, there are two studies that fit my description, one on deaths from malaria in India, and another on war-related deaths in Iraq and Bolt only accepts the one that suits his beliefs -- deaths from malaria, so he can falsely accuse Rachel Carson of causing them.
Now, the studies differed in several ways, so it's possible that someone could have good reasons to reject one and…
tlambert | April 18, 2010Andrew Bolt comes up a killer argument to refute the findings of Oxburgh's committee: Oxburgh's "choice of transport to the press conference". You see, Oxburgh drove there in an enormous SUV, so obviously he doesn't really believe that the CRU scientists' work is sound, else he would have come on a bicycle or something. Oh wait, Oxburgh did arrive on a bicycle, so Bolt deploys a slightly different argument:
Surely Oxburgh's choice of transport to the press conference on his Climategate findings should have made some journalists there wonder about his impartiality: ... You see ...
Lord…
tlambert | February 28, 2010Andrew Bolt responded to my debate with Monckton by defaming me, calling me "vituperative, deceptive, a cherrypicker, an ideologue, a misrepresenter and a Manichean conspiracist only too keen to smear a sceptic as a crook who lies for Exxon's dollars". You'll be glad to hear that Bolt now says I take back my nice words about Lambert. Even though he admitted that "Many of these issues are over my head" he is now utterly convinced by a dishonest post from Joanne Nova that I somehow tricked Monckton.
Nova quote mines Pinker's explanation for this phrase:
if we give Christopher Monckton the…
tlambert | February 25, 2010Clive Hamilton has written a five part series on the attacks on climate science in Australia:
Bullying, lies and the rise of right-wing climate denial. I already mentioned this one
Who is orchestrating the cyber-bullying?. Andrew Bolt gets a special mention for his hate mongering.
Think tanks, oil money and black ops. The think tanks in Australia promoting denial and delay are Lavoisier, the IPA, the CIS and now the Brisbane Institute.
Manufacturing a scientific scandal. Jonathan Leake's concoctions are well covered.
Who's defending science?. The Australian's War on Science and how the…
tlambert | February 16, 2010Andrew Bolt, Media Watch is overheating in its climate jihad:
All sentences that contain the word "disaster" mean the same thing.
'Shorter' concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.⢠Acknowledgement copied from Sadly, No!.
Update: The Australian runs with the Bolt line. Just how stupid does the Australian think its readers are?