Andrew Bolt: you cackhanded climate slimers you
|
In countering the global warming hysteria, I’ve been slimed by the best. Michael James’s effort yesterday, trying to discredit a column of mine last week was so cackhanded it doesn’t even come close. Much of his rant against my column last week is based on the most wilful misrepresentation — to put it mildly — of what I wrote in black and white). Judge, for example, from this:
First, of course, James uses “disprove” when he meant “prove”. Second, I specifically denied in the column that I was “conclusively” proving the world was now in a cooling phase:
And, hoping to be so clear that even a James couldn’t miss it, I repeated that caveat:
No good, I’m afraid. If some zealot wants to misrepresent you, he most certainly will. But we’re not finished with the errors in that single sentence of James. Here is his third — his claim that I’d tried to prove “conclusively” that “Arctic ice is not thinning”. In fact, nowhere in the article did I refer to Arctic ice either thinning or thickening. James just made that up, in order to have something to attack. And even then he had to ignore the latest science to deny what in fact I hadn’t said. Michael, pay attention: that was last April’s scare you regurgitated, about the unusual and dangerous thinness of so much Arctic ice. Read what the the US National Snow and Ice Center now says:
And here’s another bizarre thing. James criticises four graphs in particular, but the fourth — about the North Pole melt — isn’t even one of the seven from my column at all. It’s actually taken from this blog post. Why is this significant? Because James then focuses entirely on the below-average ice cover at the North Pole, treating it as a sign of global warming, when, as the sea ice graph in my original column shows, total sea ice around the world is in fact above average levels. If local melting, through possibly local influences, is proof of global warming, then what should we conclude from a much more extensive freezing in the Southern Hemisphere, Michael? Why do you ignore it? That doesn’t strike me as honest. Here’s another dodgy thing. James criticises my first graph for showing world temperatures only up to January. In fact, in the graph as it appeared in print, and which I linked to from my blog reprinting — the temperatures are extended to April. James claims I am “basing my argument — that the world really is cooling rather than warming — on a short blip in the data around January 2008”, which is such a distortion of my argument I am tempted to conclude it is deliberate. Distortion one: The graph data I present goes up to April, not just to January. Distortion two: In fact, as the graphs which ran with my column show, the cooling seems to have lasted now for close to two years, not one month, as has the fall in sea levels and the rise in total sea ice. Distortion three: My argument is not so much that the world is cooling, on just two years of data, but that there has not been any warming trend for at least seven years, and no net warming since 1998. That’s three more distortions in a single sentence. And an omission: If a decade still seems too short a period to make any conclusions (as I believe along with James), what James fails to acknowledge is that the IPCC’s latest report narrows the period of man-made warming to just the 25-odd years until around 1998 — which seems also rather short for firm conclusions. I could go through every line of James’ rant to find similar misrepresentations, evasions and ignorance, but this is a writing day and I’m already under the pump. I’ll probably post something fuller on my blog when I have time. But much of his attack relies on him ignoring — and misrepresenting — the whole basis of my argument. No, Michael, I’m not saying the world hasn’t warmed over the past century, and have never denied it. Indeed, my graphs showed just that warming. No, Michael, I’m not denying world temperatures have settled on a high plateau, and have never denied it. Indeed, my graphs show just that. No, Michael, I’m not denying sea levels have crept up for many scores of years, and in fact said just that in my article. Indeed, my graphs show that rise (which stopped two years ago, Michael, not one.). No, Michael, the failure of the Arctic melt this year to exceed the record of last year is not evident from just two weeks of records but the entire summer’s so far. Check the graph. No, Michael, I’m not saying the couple of cold years, the recent fall in sea levels or the increase in sea ice are proof of a trend, or have occurred for long enough to prove anything conclusive. I’ve just noted them, and said they don’t fit climate model predictions or claims of runaway warming. They deserve simply to be noted and watched — and at least reported without someone like you seeing visions of demons and going into paroxysms of misrepresentation and rage. There are many ways to discount the data I presented, and I made many of them myself, but James’s way of doing so is a disgrace. |
|
|
|
72 Comments
Below is my submission to Andrew Bolt’s blog of today (29 July 2008) in which he is a serial abuser of the graphs. My words have not appeared on the site yet so maybe I will join the honourable ranks of those who dare to challenge him with a hard dispassionate critique of his interpretation, and get myself blacklisted! Here is the exact submission.
Andrew Bolt is at it again. I think this is the third time he has shown this graph and yet it shows the opposite of what he claims for it. I dissected this on the Crikey site [url=http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080724-Andrew-Bolt.html]Crikey link[/url] last week but AB is clearly unable to interpret graphical data or to listen to the counter-argument. I note that Barry Brook yesterday and most of today’s more rational bloggers have also pointed out this obviousness (see Seadrift, Peter of Glen Iris, Rodger, many of whom — like me — are not necessarily believers in GW or AGW). I have been looking at this site for about a week now and am dejected by the abysmal quality, the lack of any rigour or logic, particularly in the undisciplined bloggers and the general sneering juvenile tone. So I am not revisiting this site. There is no point. Whichever side of the argument one is on, or if one simply wants to become more informed with alternative viewpoints argued rationally, this site is useless or worse — it actually obfuscates any facts and data. Our democracy correctly allows Bolt to have his say but he cannot pretend that this stuff he writes is any kind of contribution to the democratic or public policy process. The sad thing is that it is apparently getting almost a million hits a month; but that is about as meaningful as saying that Britney Spears is the most Googled item in the known universe. Yes, Andrew Bolt is the Paris Hilton of the Australian political blogosphere.
Andrew, people such as yourself amaze me. there always seems to be a select few who think they have discovered the “real” truth. History is littered with them, flt earthers for example. So what is the point really?
Is reducing cabon emissions such a bad thing?
When anyone uses invective to respond to someone who obviously has a much better grip on the subject , then that someone, Andrew Bolt, shows himself to be the loser. Like many of the respondents I would like to ask the question, What’s wrong with a more sane use of the resources of the planet with a consequential lessening of the pollution we make? At the rate we are gobbling up our primary resources in this countrry, one can’t feel but apprehensive about the state of the planet our descendents will inherit. Andrew you stand discredited.
The term ‘Global Warming’ was unfortunately coined and suggests or at least implies a constant and uniform increase in global temperatures. The continued use of this term has caused a fundamental confusion over the issue itself and resulted in tedious arguments over whether or not global temperatures are ‘increasing’ or ‘decreasing’. The global climate system cannot be explained so simply… so stop trying.
I urge everybody to remove ‘Global Warming’ from their vocabulary and replace it with ‘Global Climate Volatility’ or at a minimum ‘Climate Change’. Irrelevant of local warming or cooling trends – or how thick the ice is over there or over here – climates are changing and becoming more volatile. Hotter summers, colder more severe winters, sometimes even snowshowers in the depth of Melbourne summer (Dec07), less rain, more floods, more and stronger hurricanes and tornadoes… and it goes on.
I have very little respect for Andrew Bolt and his journalistic integrity… HOWEVER… there is an element of truth in what he argues (or at least what I understand his argument to be). Andrew is at least exploring the possibility of an anti-thesis (albeit misguided – driven by a need to cause conflict rather than explore truth). It appears that Michael seems to feel the need to justify the status quo on ‘Global Warming’ – who cares if the ice got thinner last year? The question is – what can we do to stop the climate from becoming more volatile?! There is no debate over whether or not it is caused by industry emmissions - these need to be reduced. The only answer is to reduce your standard of living or develop more efficient processing techniques… how far are you willing to go / what are you doing to help? I ask you Michael, with all of your concern over the issue, are you willing to only wash once a week (to save water), in a cold shower (to save energy)?
Crikey (literally), is this still going?
Well said Kevin Charles Herbert.
Bernard, Soph, and all the team, stick this article on the office wall, memorise it, reread when sipping your coffee and meditate slowly! Especially before you publish the next installment of Armageddon Mark 10 by some of the Warmists and their coreligionists. At least now a proper debate is beginning to ensue and the data is being examined.
Hopefully Rudd and Co will hasten slowly before they wreck the Australian economy.
Michael James,
“Yes, Andrew Bolt is the Paris Hilton of the Australian political blogosphere” and
‘Our democracy correctly allows Bolt to have his say BUT he cannot pretend that this stuff he writes is any kind of contribution to the democratic or public policy process’.
A ‘scientist’ apparently filled with pathetic self-pity, resentment and self-righteous indignation, all ego driven, is no true scientist and your article and headline would not have been written by a careful, accurate and honestly critical scientist. Andrew Bolt is not to blame for your humiliation; You alone are.
””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’
Kevin Charles Herbert, you are evidently quite beyond help and even if you were not, I am not disposed to helping racists…….
Typical Bolt. Spends all his time arguing black is white, then when someone calls him on it pretends he meant something else entirely. Always has these funny little “caveats” he can call on. Arguing with him, if it’s possible at all, really is like bashing your head against a brick wall. Reading his columns and his blog is now very much like watching one of those endless long running daytime soapies. He should be ignored by everyone but his brain-dead fans. Absolutely dreadful.
Bolt and Akerman, the poorer press version of Fox TV’s O’Reilly. None with talent, all with ability to twist the truth to suit their right wing racist propaganda. No coincidence all three are employed by Ruperts empire, any ole rubbish will do in both content and ability.
Gentlemen, please.
WTF are grown men getting into such a lather about something that Andrew Bolt-of all people-wrote? The man is a fifth-rate journo. FCh’s.S: look who he works for! Take a step or two backward guys. Trash like Bolt, appears out of nowhere, exists for however long the public gives him any credence. Then disappear into-in our case, the carbon clouds-of non-existence.
Sorry, I’d rather believe the scientific consensus from thousands of peer-reviewed scientists than one Andrew Bolt seeking ego satisfaction through public attention.
What I do resent is that, although not subjected to the rigour of peer review as the scientists are, his opinions are given as much air time as though they were.
Shame on the media who fan controversy for its news value at the expense of further confusing a public that needs to hear the scientific facts and not publicity seekers or possibly worse, F.U.D. from ‘Greenhouse Mafia’ agents at work..
I’m sorry Venise….please forgive me!
“In fact, nowhere in the article did I refer to Arctic ice either thinning or thickening. James just made that up, in order to have something to attack.”
C’mon Andrew…you clearly stated in your opening:
“Sea ice now isn’t melting, but spreading.”
What is that, if not a reference to the Arctic?
It’s certainly nothing to do with Antarctica, which is a land mass.
Insults galore I see…
Funny how a racist like Kevin Charles Herbert thinks everything is about him…
My apology was to Jonathan at Crikey (I suspect that he has failed to notice your particularly base offence) and that retraction did not in any refer to my calling you racist and stupid Kevin
Venise - Islamic Catholic Zionist - I’m about to baptise Andrew Bolt into the one true faith…
I believe the Newsltd mob pay Bolt $300,000 per annum to write tripe so he wrtes tripe.
His columns over many years have been based on bits and pieces sent to him by his little cretin friends.
Those professional haters who think refugees are criminals, that taking children into care for their safety is the same as sending in the troopers to steal them and make them white, who has been bleating about Manne and other reports for the past decade, who believed that locking up kids in detention was great good sense and so on.
He believes that invading Iraq has been about liberating the Iraqis - well over 1 million are dead and 5 million are now homeless so I guess they are liberated.
It’s nice that Bolt has another planet to go to with his little friends Milne and Akerman, I just wish he would go there now.
So many point of views that provide the public with so little certainty, not only from Andrew Bolt and his critics, but the scientific community in general.
Until the science improves, policy has to be based on a risk analysis considering many variables, including:
a) the nature of the climate change;
b) the rate at which these changes are occurring now and in the future;
c) how much of it is attributable to human activity; and
d) the impact on life on earth.
It’s interesting that Bolt spends most of his defence (which is that Michael James deliberately misrepresented what he wrote), deliberately misrepresenting what James wrote. A good deal of Bolts response deals with the sea ice issue, particularly that James used a different graph to one Bolt posted and claims that,
“And here’s another bizarre thing. James criticises four graphs in particular, but the fourth — about the North Pole melt — isn’t even one of the seven from my column at all”
But James never even suggested that the graph he used to highlights Bolts error about sea-ice was from Bolts article . He clearly identified the 3 preceding gaphs as coming from Bolts original article, but not the forth.
Bolt has much less to say about James’s specific critique of his reading and use of those graphs - because it was pretty indefensible and James was right to call label them as misrepresentations. Bolts subsequent misrepresentation of the US National Snow and Ice Centre report in his attempted defense only compounds the strong impression that he is irrational and deliberately misleading on this topic.
Welcome Barry!
Would you please demonstrate what Bolt knows is wrong (“typical” or atypical) or even what he doesn’t know is wrong but is wrong (“typical” or atypical) amongst the “crap” in his “reply”?
Then perhaps you might tell us what is right (typical or atypical) or even what he doesn’t know is right but is right (typical or atypical) in ‘Queensland scientist’ Michael James’ article yesterday: “Andrew Bolt: master of climate misrepresentation” to which Mr. Bolt was given this right of reply?
JamesK, I noticed you haven’t answered my question…
Why did Andrew choose to use March’s visually appealing figures instead of the current figures?
Or is it worth acknowledging that to present 4 month old data as current data is misleading?
Maybe Kevin Rudd did stop sweating 4 months ago at the news…who knows…but the fact is those ‘good results’ were short lived.
One reason for more Antarctic sea ice is that warmer air at altitude is causing more rainfall, therefore more seasonal ice when it falls. The melting ice sheet is still a grave concern.
Bit disappointed Andrew that you didn’t cite the petition of 30,000 “climate scicentists” that you, albrechtson, akerman and other regular refer too. That’s right, the petition that comprises such eminent “climate scientists as Ginger Spice, BJ Honnicutt, Hawkeye Pierce and Frank Burns. The one that was sent out on a National Academcy of Science letterhead that the NAS was forced to tell its members was a fraud. The one that was put out by the “eminent” Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
Check out their web site. It’;s not an institutie at all, it’s a father and son business that sells home schooling curriculum to like minded “survivalists” and sells DVDs on how to survive a nuclear war.
Why? Because the solution of so called survivalists if they are wrong about climate chnage is to have a limited nuclear war. Just enough to throw up enough dust in the atmosphere to cool the place down again. Charming.
And these are the people you would have your readers take seriously. Perhaps you should join them. They recommend a nuclear shelter needs to be 10 foot deep to be effective. You will need a shovel.
Michael, Michael James stated:
“Without even verifying the source or content of these graphs but just taking them at face value, I believe that any scientist or reasonably intelligent person would agree with my statements. If a scientist presented this at a conference he would be laughed at or met by stunned, embarassed(sic) silence. Let’s look at Bolt’s graphs…”
He then shows 4 graphs and after each graph he gives a critical commentary including after the fourth graph:
“Andrew Bolt bases his erroneous claim that Arctic sea ice is not thinning on two weeks of the most recent data for 2008 (highlighted in red on graph) and only in comparison to the same period in 2007; in fact the data confirm it is thinning”.
Your assertion, Michael, apart from being relatively nitpicking considering Bolt’s very serious criticisms of dishonesty is even on this relatively minor issue quite false.
Bolt himself clearly points this out:
“And here’s another bizarre thing. James criticises four graphs in particular, but the fourth — about the North Pole melt — isn’t even one of the seven from my column at all. It’s actually taken from this blog post.
Why is this significant? Because James then focuses entirely on the below-average ice cover at the North Pole, treating it as a sign of global warming, when, as the sea ice graph in my original column shows, total sea ice around the world is in fact above average levels. If local melting, through possibly local influences, is proof of global warming, then what should we conclude from a much more extensive freezing in the Southern Hemisphere, Michael? Why do you ignore it? That doesn’t strike me as honest.”
Michael, the striking irony of your final, amongst many ridiculous assertion, namely:
“his attempted defense only compounds the strong impression that he is irrational and deliberately misleading on this topic ”
leaves me quite staggered at your barefaced hypocrisy and dishonesty.
You have an agenda and you will lie freely to further it.
Your behaviour is reprehensible.
Some of us prefer to be given the facts and make up our own minds.
Andrew Bolt,on that basis, stands head and and shoulders above you and your poisonous beliefs and prejudices
Note to Connor Moran:
I. I sincerely doubt that you do in fact know his argument rather you think you know him and consequently see him as a threat. If you do know his argument then you have certainly not demonstrated that knowledge with an “argument” to counter it. Have you?
2. Who exactly do you mean by “we”?
When members of the extreme lunatic Right like Bolt, O’Reilly and Hannity know they’ve got it wrong they can’t shut up….like Bolt on the Insiders (but who was sure put in his place on Q & A). They bore their readers and listeners into submission…the crap he wrote in his “reply” was typical.
JamesK: I can just imagine the sighs of relief all round at Crikey now that you’ve apologised for accusing them of support for my alleged racist comments.(read ’ fair criticism of Australia’s bblinkered Zionist barrackers).
And why stop there old boy !!!!!!!
How about an apology for the multitude of puerile accusations/claims you’ve made on many other topics….On second thoughts, the 4800 characters available may not be enough.
OK then…how about just a general apology to all those Crikey contributors you’ve unreasonably slagged off…in the last week.
12 comments and not a single reasoned argument to counter Bolt’s. I’m sure he is quaking in his boots. I f you folks have nothing to contribute apart from grandstanding then you insult everyone who reads this board.
Paul: I imagine there are two good reasons for Crickey allowing the ‘bolter from the suburbs’ to air his sh*thouse lack of opinions. Good publicity! For the miniscule amount of people who can pass grade one maths in the Herald Sun’s readership, they will be looking at what this navel-gazing opportunist has to say in Crikey. Of course, the likelihood of their being able to read these pages is highly problematical. 2. For someone with such a laughable sense of ego as our man in the bilges. He would rapt to appear in a proper paper. And doesn’t even worry what other people think. I mean he does have all those delicious pay checks coming in from Rupert, from the Liberal Party, ad infinitum. 3. Crikey, for free I imagine, gets one one of the more obnoxious quasi-journalists to strip down to his jocks. What no one told the poor sod, is all forms of creativity-I know it’s hard to call his ravenings creativity, but -I’m using it until a better word comes along-the person doing it bares his soul-and, it’s painfully obvious that Bolt is completely hollow.
What I want to know is why the power companies are not being challenged left, right and centre about their desire to keep using filthy products when they have an ample supply of free power available to them?
Could it be that they have been ripping us off for 20 years?
Andrew comes out of the blocks swinging and knocks himself out. The man is living proof that we are living with more and more hot air. That trees die in order to propagate his bilge is tragic.
Arguing with him is like arguing with a Mormon on your doorstep. Some people enjoy it but I consider it a a complete waste of hot air.
Bolt said in his first piece - “Forget media scares about a melting North Pole…..”. So Michael James addressed the issue of Arctic ice.
But now Bolt says,
“In fact, nowhere in the article did I refer to Arctic ice either thinning or thickening. James just made that up, in order to have something to attack. “
Oh,OK. Saying that a “melting North Pole” is a “media scare”, is not a reference to thinning Arctic ice……… if you’re an outrageously blatant sophist……..which Andrew Bolt most certainly is. And just to prove that James was spot-on to address the issue, Bolt repeats his denial,
‘Michael, pay attention: that was last April’s scare you regurgitated, about the unusual and dangerous thinness of so much Arctic ice”.
Isn’t it great that Andrew doesn’t refer to “Arctic ice…thinning”?
But Bolt’s making things up doesn’t stop there. He then posts a long exceprt from the US National Snow and Ice Centre, finishing with this sentance,
“So why is the first-year ice thicker than anticipated?”
Bolt’s eyes must have been drawn to only these 7 words “why is the first-year ice thicker” , and ignored the message of the latest report on Arctic sea ice. They anticipated the sea-ice this sea to be very thin, but it was only “fairly thin”. Isn’t it a pity that Andrew didn’t comprehend (rather than just read) what the report says.
Here’s a few excerpts that give a fair summary of their assessment of this years Arctic sea-ice (Andrew Bolt please take note),
-” Previous discussion (see April 7, 2008) presented evidence that much of the Arctic Ocean this winter and spring, including the area near the North Pole, was covered with fairly thin, first-year ice. This thin, young ice is vulnerable to melting completely in summer. The large areas of low-concentration ice discussed above reinforce this concern.”
- “In contrast to the first-year ice, the multiyear ice in 2008 appears to be much thinner than in the past two years”
The report also shows that the extent of thin ice at the end of winter is much greater this year than the last two, even though it is not as thin “as anticipated”.
Bolt then tries to attach some signficance to the current slight increase in sea-ice in Antartica. Unfortunately for the dishonet Bolt, monitoring of this sea-ice shows no upward trend, unlike the Arctic situation, where there is a proven and serious melting trend observed over the last few decades.
For the life of me I don’t understand Bolt getting all overheated over someone writing a column/comment decrying his view of climate change.
There are 2 kinds of people in the world. One subscribes to Bolts theory of climate change over/understatement bordering on disbelief, and James, who as is obvious believes it all. We as laypersons (goodness almost said laymen, have no real idea, we listen to experts and decide who we like and whether we like what they say. It isn’t as though there is a place we can go and get a measured, rational argument is there?
My suggestion is that Bolt gets a thicker skin and stops beefing because he hasn’t turned the entire world to his point of view.
Hi Nick T - I thought you were hard done by yesterday…very very politically incorrect but so incorrect that it really is difficult to believe that anyone with half a brain could have taken offense and it was very funny. In fact I sent it off to a few mates by email. However once someone does take offense then the moderator would feel duty bound to act.
I suspect Kevin refers to my apology to Jonathan as: “you’ve apologised for accusing them of support for my alleged racist comments”.
JamesK: Thank you.
Cheers
Venise
JamesK: a final observation…..a look over your ‘contributions’ to this page shows clearly that your stock in trade is what’s best decribed as lowbrow sophistry……now where in the rich fabric of our multi cultural community is that approach taught…….maybe you can help me………
To Connor Moran:
While none of us hold Mr. Bolt’s views in particularly high stead, freedom of speech and diversity of opinion is an essential part of a democracy and only adds credibility and vibrancy to Crikey as a publication.
Mmm Andrew Bolt aggro rightwing attack dog, er, I mean respected columnist or Michael James noted research scientist- I know who I’m with. I think the point is the environment and something is happening to the environment now and let’s try to cover all bases before the planet is too damaged to live on and no, if we act now and China or India doesn’t immediately we won’t be swamped by the yellow hordes from the north, we might just be leading the way. Sheeez
After reading Andrew Bolt’s response to Michael James article, I was almost…almost…prepared to believe Bolt. Maybe I too had misread his rants and raves about global warming. Maybe I had not seen that his vehement arguments against global warming were in fact just a plea for more data, a more measured and considered approach to what is a very complex argument. Maybe it was I that needed to reappraise my views on this. Maybe…But then dear ol’ “First Dog” set me straight in the very next read. That Bolt could equate the tragic death of a baby to the world’s concern of global warming shows what an incredibly out of touch, out of mind and well, out of time person he is. This is the same person who on the one hand lead the change to have Henson and Aboriginies villified over child sex issues, but on the other hand decries those who bring the very same issues to bear about the Catholic Church. He will take whatever stance he likes provided he can manipuilate it to meet his uber right view of the world. And when you dare try to stand up to him, woe betide you for you will be met with the most borish tirade about the rudeness of the left or the distortion of his words (what a laugh coming from him) or maybe, if you are lucky, he might just mock you and belittle you. If you are lucky.
Unfortunately, while the likes of News Ltd give him and others like him oxygen, we will have to suffer them. For no matter what we say there will always be people like him - which might juast be of comfort to the rest of us because if nothing else they provide the perfect reason as to why we are actually correct.
Michael, I have not “got it completely wrong” as you suggest and in fact far from it. Your thinking is so delusional that it has poisoned your perception. To say:
“He makes no such claim about the fourth, because OBVIOUSLY it wasn’t from Bolts’ article” is just plain NUTS!
Any REASONABLE person reading Michael James’ article would believe that the fourth graph was reproduced from Bolt’s article. You and I have no further basis for “discussion” if you continue to peddle the quite, quite ridiculous assertion that just because James somehow did not immediately and categorically state after his fourth graph that ‘this is Andrew Bolt’s fourth graph’ , despite introducing the four graphs with: “Let’s look at Bolt’s graphs…”
This exercise in wilful dishonest is painful Michael. I read yours and Michael James’ assertions. I go back and read Bolt’s article and discover that they are simply not true.
It’s not as if I have said in my multiple comments on both of these article that I agree with Bolt, in fact, I did say that I could have argued far more effectively against it than Michael James.
Each time I spend much time reading and checking this bilge and it is quite frankly TIRESOME!
Moreover when I do, overwhelmingly, I discovered that what Micheal James says Bolt says, he didn’t and ditto for you.
I do not even agree with Bolt’s position but I would be morally bankrupt if I ignored the easily discoverable and willful DISHONESTY from James and you
No recent warming? I don’t understand the Andrew Bolt statement there is no warming in last 10 years. From Hadley centre graphs of world average temperatures, sure 1998 is warmest year on record but each year after 2000 (ie 2001-07) was warmer than every year on record prior to 2000 apart from 1998.
Hi Justin:
1.A recent debate on the same website, The Forum on Physics and Society (FPS) is a division of the American Physical Society, organized in 1971 to address issues related to the interface of physics and society as a whole
PRO: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm
AGAINST: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
2.General Info at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus
umm, why was my last comment cut from this thread?
a Doctor appears to tell us about Values, Honesty, Nobility, Accountability etc
Science as pure as the driven Catholic Church
Pseudoscience the Devil’s postmodern play thing
(cause it was really small boys with imaginations and backyard chemistry kits that invented nuclear weapons…or maybe confused dinner party guests)
tell him to use a pseudonym for goodness sake…
Spot on Michael.
He’s one to talk of media hype and scare.
JamesK,
How could anyone think that James’s fourth graph is from Bolts article when he makes no such claim, and it clearly isn’t? What should James say? - ‘warning: this graph, which I have not claimed is from Bolts article, is in fact, not from Bolts article, but is included to illustrate what was wrong with the graph that Bolt used.’ It’s so easy to see this that I’m quite surprised anyone could seriously make this claim. And did you notice that James only refers to 4 of Bolts 7 graphs. Was he also dishonestly suggesting that Bolt only had 4 graphs? Afterall, James doesn’t explicitly say that he was only going to discuss four of them. Perhaps someone else might be deeply troubled by this?
You also wrote that,
“I read yours and Michael James’ assertions. I go back and read Bolt’s article and discover that they are simply not true.”
It’s a pity you didn’t specify what I’ve written that isn’t true. I would have been quite happy to dispel your confusion.
Tweedledum and Tweedledee? Certainly affected twee….
Well well JamesK: I was about to explain why I am unable to believe yours and Andrew Bolt’s claims. Considering the amount of words he spews out on any given subject, and his appearances on television-mercifully I’ve never has this experience. All suggest a man who is so busy that he is unable to research any subject in depth, therefore why not pinch and distort someones else’s work?
Your sudden Damascene conversion to criticize Bolt is not your style. I think you got sick of all the attacks. You see what happens when the ‘boy cries wolf too often?
Throughout all of your correspondence for the year since I became a member of Crikey, you have been tiresome by your knee-jerk reactionism. Anyone reading your input knows which side of the political fence you come from. You admit you are biased (what Journalist isn’t if he/she has a thought in their head). Then you do a complete cop-out by saying your syntax would be biased. Of course it will. But by then it’s up to the readers to judge you.
With the above evidence I am completely un-able to believe either of you. !No vale la pena!
.
Then comes this complete volte face you have just come out with. Does the cheetah suddenly change its spots? Not Blo*dy likely! You have such a long history of being a running -dog for the Liberal Party, you have shot any creds you had to pieces, automatically I disbelieve you. Sad, but true.
Much as I love you I have to say that a man who believe Andrew Bolt is a man devoid of reason.
Cheers
Venise
PS. You say you are a Catholic Zionist. Does this mean you are a Jew who has converted to Catholicism?
Or a Catholic who has converted to Judaism? Or was one of your parents a Jew and the other a Catholic?
And you wanted to remember them. Which is rather sweet.
I am an atheist, whose parents were atheists, and who grandparents on my mother’s side were atheists. My father’s parents were Anglican. So you see that my atheism is not a recent opinion. is not a sudden conversion.
Ciao, chau, adieu, hasta entonces, etc.
“No, Michael, I’m not saying the couple of cold years, the recent fall in sea levels or the increase in sea ice are proof of a trend, or have occurred for long enough to prove anything conclusive. I’ve just noted them, and said they don’t fit climate model predictions or claims of runaway warming.”
Increases in Antarctic sea ice thickness do fit climate model predictions, we covered this last week. Try to keep up or stfu
Bolt’s orgninal blog was so badly written that it is no wonder there is argument over who wrote what. High school maths: every graph has a title and a label number which you use for cross-reference. And if your are going to explain graphs leave out the multiple tangents and ego driven crap. Let the data do the talking. How about using some paragraph structure so that you can tell when you are off the track. Why use a full stop when the return is it?
The ethical currency of research evidence is peer-reviewed publications written by the team that did the research. Anyone who writes of major scientific discoveries by mentioning exclusively singular people, their position and their opinions as if they know them personally but would not know a graph from a picture is corrupting the ethics of science and is in the road of progress.
Michael James: Please don’t despair. You wrote a splendid article and obviously bit a lot of people in a very nasty place. Not being a scientist I expect my comments praising your work don’t count. I believe, utterly, in your hypothesis. Not only because of the passion with which you write, but Andrew Bolt’s track record is so appalling a to make any sane person a disbeliever of his work.
It is unfortunate that “Global Warming” has been seized on by everyone, because it gives the deniers a field day. Perhaps it should have been called “Global Oscillation of variable, but warming devastation, caused, as much as anything by over-population, and me -tooism, aka greed by the sort of people who buy SVUs.” But that is a long title.
I think you’re wrong to call Andrew Bolt the Paris Hilton of Australian journalism-bloggsville,whatever- He is undoubtedly “THE W — — OF AUSTRALIAN BLOGGSVILLE”. If the Labor party could afford his price he would turn so quickly it would make his own head spin. The only consolation is that like a whore, he will age quickly. Once his scandal factor diminishes he will be like ‘the boy who cried wolf’. Dead meat.
Cheers
Venise
JamesK,
Sorry, but you’ve got it completely wrong.
On the graphs. James introduces the first three by saying “Let’s look at Bolt’s graphs…….This is Andrew Bolt’s second graph………This is Andrew Bolt’s third graph…..”. He makes no such claim about the fourth, because obviously it wasn’t from Bolts’ article. James said that he would show how Bolt “totally misinterpreted the graphs”. Both Bolt and yourself seem to take that to mean he must reproduce Bolts graphs. The fourth graph that James uses shows how Bolts sea-ice graph represents a very short recent time scale, grossly misrepresenting the long-term trend of Arctic sea-ice. James’s graph also exposes Bolts utterly fraudulent claim that melting Arctic sea-ice is a “media scare”. It is a fact.
Bolt then shows his contempt for rational thought by suggesting that the increase in last seasons Antarctic sea-ice means that AGW is “hype”. Utter nonsense. The long-term trends are what we need to focus on. If next years Antarctic sea-ice is lower than average will Bolt suddenly be a convert to AGW “hype”? Since Bolt is keen on NOAAs graphs maybe he’ll take notice of their assessment on sea-ice: a strong melting trend in the Arctic and no clear trend in the Antarctic. Which means we have a global trend to less sea-ice.
Which just confirms the thrust of Michael James’s initial piece - that Andrew Bolts treatment of the science is appalling.
So Venise…..Should I take this to mean you don’t in fact like Andrew Bolt?
You never said……..Are you sure? I mean he seems so nice and you seem so nice……
You cite Jesus lovingly as does he…..
This from a man who disputes the stolen generation. By the way who let Bolt write for Crikey?
mike smith
“Nick - well, technically, spreading isn’t thickening.”
maybe (non-technically it could be interpreted to mean either)…but “melting” certainly means thinning.
Andrew used anomaly graphs to argue his case.
But why use March’s graph? What’s wrong with the current version? It’s just as easily available…
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
Oh I see…doesn’t have quite the same impact does it…
After refering to “Bolts second graph…..Bolt’s third graph……” Michael James refered to the fourth graph this way,
“The US laboratory that provided this graph…..”
I can only conclude that it takes a wilful misreading of James to come to the conclusion that you and Andrew Bolt do.
Well put Paul Arnold. One of the better Bolt descriptors I have read. Wading through articles relating to climate change becomes tedious when people are out to set agendas rather than trying to analyze the data. The fact is that the climate system has countless feedback mechanisms and is inherently variability, which makes skewing an argument easy. The real challenge is finding the truth of the matter, which appears to fall within the human influenced climate change realm, rather than that of the skeptics (based on current evidence - see IPCC reports). In the end growing global oil and fossil fuel demand, combined with dwindling production may mean that many of the issues are solved through a global economic depression rather than government sanctioned carbon trading schemes (lifeafteroil.com). The short of the matter is though that we have a responsibility to conserve our energy usage, whether a run away climate model is proved or not. That seems only prudent. Arguing with Andrew or reading his articles only gives (undeserving) credence to his work. As Keating said of Costello, he’s all tip and no iceberg.
Leon - Pay attention to spelling, lest you be considered whit[sic] trash yourself.
Nick - well, technically, spreading isn’t thickening.
Paul - He doesn’t write *for* Crikey, they are giving him right of reply
Steve - yes, we have right wing attack dogs, and we have, um, climate change attack dogs. Those who attack anyone who isn’t with them. I read both sides *critically*
Marilyn - “He believes that invading Iraq has been about liberating the Iraqis - well over 1 million are dead and 5 million are now homeless so I guess they are liberated.”
Yes, it reminds me of this quote by Tacitus:
“To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.”
JamesK: You criticize people who wander off the track; yet you, YES YOU, descend to unspeakably rude, and personal comment, in an effort to deny Michael James’ work. Work that you happen to disagree with.
Don’t argue back, please. I’m sick. Wait until I get over a badly upset stomach.
Well you’re certainly blowing the whistle on Michael. Abuse of science and honest scientific argument is rife, all around us, unnoticed and to the extent of costing our loved ones their lives on occasion under our very noses with balmy crappy pseudoscientific explanations that we swallow because there is a paucity of people who know anymore (what our experts won’t or can’t heed anymore would freak anyone out) or would speak out (I don’t know which anymore). Taking the trouble to make others accountable for their babble is always worthwhile even if we think nobody is listening. The latter is my problem not yours.
Reducing carbon is fine, talking unadulterated crap about it will get you crap and stuff up the noble idea of reducing carbon. That’s how values work.
Our PM looking over the Murray-Darling disaster recently said “ ….. we are looking at the evidence of global warming …”, sorry it’s a drought we are looking at and trying to prevent global warming which is yet to happen. As bright as he is , he’s been affected by this insidious process. The process of (his now and others before) wrong words being media repeated ad nauseum until not only the ordinary amongst us believe this is a scientific consensus.
The two ‘life’ gases shrouding our planet become another example with carbon dioxide now a pollutant and oxygen a toxin requiring pathetic antioxidants (the range proffered being capable of nothing more than preventing a cut fruit salad going brown) to protect our health.
There are many scientists who get it but finding time away from thinking specialised thinking or chanting the chant is difficult.
By the way climate models are not science they are postulates, worthy yes.
Is James K a pseudonym for Andrew Bolt ?
I already resolved the apparent but not real disjunction between Bolter’s material and orthordox global warming. It’s to do with massive (eg Chinese) particulates and Global Dimming which is also real, does dampen Global Warming, and is no solution at all. Bolter has probably already seen it. He’s playing with your minds and he knows better. The real politik debate was had on the Insiders couch … oh a few months after Rudd won. AB is realistic to that extent. Here is the piece. The take out here is ad hominem is no help to anyone here and elsewhere.
Monday, 21 July 2008
Comment on ‘diabolical’ interplay of Global Warming and Dimming
Mood: blue
Topic: aust govt
You’ll have to google it.
Lets face the real facts. Andrew Bolt is just a knob, agreed?
Mark P, do you mean the actual, authentic, bona fide, certain, correct, essential, exact, fundamental, genuine, honest, indisputable, kosher, precise, unassailable and veritable FACTS ? Or do we have a little leeway?
Andrew Bolt cracks me up. It’s not what he writes, but the reaction he always generates. He’s a loose canon that continues to wear public scorn.
I’d have to review some literature for myself before I can take any position on the subject. If anyone can offer a good starting point, such as a survey, post the reference here.
JamesK, are you a little hard of reading?
Where did Kevin say he thought you were apologising to him?
Nick T, are you a little hard of reading?
Richard McGuire, Please see my comments to Thursday’s article from Michael James where the truth is revealed……..
JamesK
Could it be (perish the thought) that it may be you who is being unreasonable, untenable and highly assailable?
Certainly, you deserve an “A” for tenacity. But what would be the use for tenacity amongst the swirling winds of black-carbon dust blowing endlessly across the flat dead landscape of Australia circa 3000ad? The muffled refrain of our unofficial national song will be sucked out of the eco-sphere into the fiery hell which will surround our planet with heat equivalent to Venus and Mars combined. No use for tenacity in this scenario.
To defend Andrew Bolt, on any part of his stolen, (then bent) research, is to support and fall into line with all that is tawdry and fifth-rate. With every comment you make which supports him (even although-if I can believe you-you find some fault in his less than edifying prose) is to give him breath that he doesn’t deserve.
The pages of Crikey are the poorer for your presence.
I thought you were better than this.
Only whit trash listen to andrew Bolt
Re: Andrew Bolt’s fatuous in-put, laughingly described as a blog (a blot would be more like it). An interesting comment from a woman who wrote it long before Global Temperature was being discussed at all. She is writing about life at ‘Wentworth’ House, -a huge palace, bigger even than Blenheim palace-at the time of her great grandfather-William, the 6th Earl Fitzwilliam. Elfrida, Countess of Wharncliffe (I can’t help having a catholic taste in books. Down Fido, not your kind of Catholic). writing about life in 1902.
“The entire mansion was like an icehouse. In the HARD WINTERS THAT WE USED TO HAVE THEN, going downstairs to be with my mother after tea………”
It doesn’t prove anything, it’s just another piece of evidence, to add to the Iguacu of opinion which contradicts
your regrettable stance.
No JamesK the only insult being dished out here is your pathetic attempt to support Bolt. He is well known for his “my opinion, stuff yours” attitude. Very few of his peers have anything good to say about him and I know a fair few of them. Get your rose coloured glasses off and look with clear eyes and open mind.
Incidently there are some for good rebuttals of the Boltas tunnel vision comments, but of course they do not suit your flag waving stance.
I just finished yet another post with a swipe at the prejudice of one the commentators on yesterday’s article. in the course of that I took a side swipe at Crikey’s editor for having the same prejudice.
I retract that. Well done for publishing Andrew Bolt’s rebuttal. Hat’s off
Michael says: “How could anyone think that James’s(sic) fourth graph is from Bolts article when he makes no such claim….?”
I have said: “Any REASONABLE person reading Michael James’ article would believe that the fourth graph was reproduced from Bolt’s article”
Your belief is, from my perspective, untenable and we shall leave it there.
JamesK do most of us a favour and zip up, you have more than had your say here. Go back to Bolts trashy column where you belong…better still get a job and do something worthwhile with your time…you are an utter bore.
Note to Crikey: I do not subscribe to Crikey to see Andrew Bolt and his pseudo-intellectual neo-con mental problems given space. Many of us already understand who he is, and what he represents. We have no interest in his “argument”.
I have made the same statement to the ABC also, regarding others including Ackerman.
Well people there are factoids, then there are Bolt-oids. I got about a third of the way through the above exercise in semantics and lost interest. For a simple demonstration of the great Bolter at work one simply has to go a transcript of the ABC’s Science Show 10th March last year ,where the following exchange took place, between Science show host Robyn Williams, and Bolt. Bolt to Williams..”I ask you Robyn, 100 metres in the next century, do you really think that?” Williams replied “It is possible yes.” My understanding of english would suggest “next century” to mean 2101 to 2200. Yet in a Herald Sun piece”Drowning in drivel” 9th May, this was Bolt’s take on the exchange, “ABC Science Show host Robyn Williams recently told me on air we could face seas this century 100m higher?” When I raised the inconsistency between Bolt’s version and the transcript in Crikey comments last year, there were responses from people who really believed Robyn Williams capable of claiming sea levels would rise by better than a metre a year this century. It was after all 2007. Bolt recently repeated the claim on his blog, and even produced the ABC transcript., possibly safe in the knowledge that the people who frequent his blog, would not have intellectual capacity to spot the inconsistency. The problem with confronting Bolt and other denialists is the sad fact they don’t have to prove anything. Muddying the waters is enough. Like a spinner for the tobacco industry once said, “doubt is our message.”