Oh Bolty, you’ve done it again

Posted on Updated on

With apologies to the McCain people. At least their product had some utility in society, unlike the doltish drivel churned out by Andrew Bolt. When Bolt meets climate change, the nonsense just seems to flow. I refer to this recent article, which I just happened to see while at my aunt’s house. Try as I might, I couldn’t avert my eyes – damn you Bolt.

This time, he tries very hard to be amusing by using sarcasm, although fails dismally. Rather than coming off as clever, he once again shows either:

a. His complete and utter lack of understanding of climate change, or,

b. Willful disregard of the facts in order to churn out more pointless column-inches.

The source of his failed attempt at humour is that all the rain and flooding around the country is another nail in the coffin of climate change. To make his point, he dredges up irrelevant quotes from people who talked up the drought a couple of years back. I’m not even going to quote from the article, because I couldn’t find anything worth directly commenting upon.

Andrew. How can I say this in terms you will understand? Let me try.

GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT THE SAME AS CLIMATE CHANGE. THE FORMER IS THE CAUSE, THE LATTER IS THE RESULT.

GLOBAL WARMING IS NOW AN INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT – I DON’T EVEN ASK YOU TO ACCEPT THAT IT IS MAN-MADE, EVEN THOUGH THIS ALSO BEYOND DISPUTE.

CLIMATE CHANGE WILL VARY ON DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE GLOBE – THIS MEANS THE POSSIBILITY OF MORE DROUGHTS AND MORE FLOODS.

ANECDOTAL STORIES BASED ON A HANDFUL OF OBSERVATIONS CANNOT BE USED TO PROVE OR DISPROVE THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE – LONGER TERM OBSERVATIONS ARE REQUIRED.

So, what is it about these primary-school level ideas that so challenge you Andrew?

You have in the past accused climate researchers for having less than pure motives. Well, it seems that you are willing to fill newspapers with this sort of pointless and misleading content for money alone, since you could not possibly be so ill-informed.

Could you?

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Oh Bolty, you’ve done it again

    martin said:
    January 1, 2012 at 9:22 pm

    C.,

    why don’t you get your very rational rebuttal out there by sending it to the papers?
    You never know- they just might publish it!
    I speak from experience.
    M.

      rationalbrain said:
      January 1, 2012 at 10:03 pm

      Hi Martin
      I guess it’s just a time thing. It’s the same reason I don’t respond to the articles on the newspapers’ own sites.
      In any case, I’m sure they see they all see it. They would have google alerts or similar, scouring the web for content.
      But feel free to pass anything on if you feel inclined!
      Happy new year!
      rb.

    martin said:
    January 2, 2012 at 11:25 pm

    http://www.theage.com.au/national/letters/submit

    Its not about the paper or Bolt reading it , but maybe some in the general public.
    It doesnt take much time ,just cut and paste it into above location.

    M.

    Vlad said:
    December 12, 2012 at 9:49 pm

    So backtracking on some of your blog posts, I’ve located another Global Warming related one, and this time I actually have a link to link.
    What do you think about NASA’s observations on the warming period between 1900-1960 followed by the earth cooling for the last 50 years?

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature.php

    I mean, you know, NASA. Is it still a incontrovertible fact?

      rationalbrain responded:
      December 12, 2012 at 10:01 pm

      Mate, I really don’t have time for all this at present but I did have a look at that article. Not sure what you were reading but that’s not what it says – I couldn’t see it anywhere. Just go to the last paragraph. All the graphs seem to dispute your conclusion.
      In any case, I won’t be swayed by ‘cherry picked’ articles.
      How many inputs do you think the IPCC study considered?
      Do you thing the Australian Academy of Science was fooled by a couple of climate alarmists?

      I think one is better off reading broadly, and deciding accordingly. As far as I’m concerned, the relevant organisations (I mentioned two above, and CSIRO is another here) have done the hard yards. The answer is clear.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s