Double the doubt March 7, 2010Posted by BlueGreen in Author Comment, Deception.
Here, Bolt recounts the results of a recent poll of 609 NSW voters that shows:
A Sun-Herald/Taverner poll of 609 NSW voters shows 8 per cent of people do not believe climate change is real and another 29 per cent think it is real but not caused by humans and 60 per cent of people believed in man-made climate change.
Last year, only 3 per cent said climate change was not real and 18 per cent said it was happening but not caused by humans. In 2008 2 per cent did not believe and 14 per cent said it was real but humans were not responsible.
But then he does a very curious thing and reiterates what he claims is his current position on climate change, which is apparently encapsulated by:
Andrew Bolt: I’m certainly pretty sure that there has been global warming, 0.7 of a degree over the last century, which is the IPCC’s latest report. I am pretty sure, given the consensus of science, that man has some role to play in that… (But) how much is man responsible?
He then says that his doubts are related to the questions:
…how bad would warming really be?
Is it really worth the pain of trying to stop?
Really? If Bolt really believes that global warming has occurred and that some component of it is due to humans (which presumably ranges from a small amount to 100% due to humans), I think it’s reasonable to expect the following from him; that he:
Provides equal weighting on his blog to arguments for both sides (after all, he demands this of others);
Wouldn’t refer to the science or scientists as fraudulent, a hoax or a scam;
Apply scepticism to counter arguments and theories for both sides; and
Would not seek to deceive people or misrepresent the science.
Let’s have a look at the first. I don’t think any objective and sane person could possibly believe that Bolt gives any weight whatsoever to the pro-AGW side of the debate. As evidence, I give you his columns and his blog.
The second: Sadly, a fail that is very easily graded by searching his blog with the words: fraud, scam, hoax and con. Now of course, the vast majority of these will be proffered by Bolt’s commenters but here are some that are directly attributable to Bolt from the print media or his blog:
To the 3rd. Well, we know and it is very clear that Bolt applies a form of scepticism to the pro-AGW side of the science. What of scepticism of and for those that put forward anti-AGW theory and views? Given that Bolt is not a scientist and can therefore claim no ability to test scientific hypotheses himself, an appropriate test of this would be to look at Bolt’s record of providing corrections and updates detailing when he has highlighted views or theories that are later, or have already proven to be false or even doubtful. I have myself many times provided feedback to Bolt’s posts and columns with links to evidence that have shown that theories, hypotheses and papers that he has referenced have been debunked, or he has provided an erroneous summation or slant or he has misrepresented the author. Without fail, Bolt has refused to acknowledge or update posts with such information. And, as this blog demonstrates, Bolt clearly never checks, references or puts forward himself, counter arguments or positions to anti-AGW material he references.
On the fourth, this blog again shows how Bolt has deceived his readers and misrepresented climate science and scientists. After only one month of compiling this blog, I have published 52 posts in which I have shown, with references and links, that Bolt has made mistakes, has misrepresented the science, has abused or smeared scientists or opponents in the debate or has set out to deceive.
Based on this analysis, I can come to only two possible conclusions in relation to Bolt’s statement about his position on AGW: Either the statement is (now) false – in which case he would appear to be highlighting this statement in order to have a cover upon retreat; or, he is purposely adopting a more extreme anti-AGW stance in his columns and on his blog to attract the support and readership of the full range of the anti-AGW market.
Even Obama does what Rudd won’t dare February 17, 2010Posted by BlueGreen in Author Comment, Hypocrisy.
Bolt’s Post 18 February, 2010
The issue of nuclear energy as a low-CO2 alternative is one that I’m completely open about and, given my conviction that we need to urgently do something about CO2, also one I’d advocate for, even if only to demonstrate to ideologues like Bolt that the issue really is serious.
But, let’s look at Bolt’s post and consider what it says about his consistency and integrity on this issue. Bolt says:
Barack Obama says yes to two more nuclear power stations:
To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It’s that simple.
But somehow it isn’t simple to Kevin Rudd, the alarmist who claims global warming ”is the great moral challenge of our generation” yet is too much the timid populist to do the only useful thing that could slash our emissions by what he wants:
Our policy is that Australia has multiple other energy sources and we will not be heading in the direction of civil nuclear power.
Setting aside the fact that the USA likely has very different energy needs to Australia’s, consider the fact that the chief obstacles in implementing a nuclear energy program in Australia would be:
- Public concerns over safety and radioactive waste disposal;
- Changes and job losses associated with the change from a coal-based energy system to nuclear.
Whilst I would expect that any government, Coalition or Labor could change public opinion if they really wanted to, I think it’s the latter that would present the real problem.
But now, look at how this issue so readily demonstrates Bolt’s hypocrisy. He’s apparently completely open to the idea of changing our whole energy system and willing to take on all the economic uncertainty and disruption that creates in order to implement a nuclear program but has constantly preached economic doom should we consider such a strategy with using other alternative energy solutions to combat AGW.
Hypocrisy and, given what economic studies have actually shown, misrepresentation. Pure and very simple.