Search
Recent comments
- a six-minute read...
13 min 29 sec ago - inexpensive....
2 hours 5 min ago - obviously....
2 hours 12 min ago - macronleon de gaulle.....
4 hours 31 min ago - nazis in washington.....
4 hours 39 min ago - blinkenings.....
12 hours 14 min ago - georgia's NGOs
13 hours 13 min ago - breeding insanity....
22 hours 53 min ago - american "diplomacy"
1 day 1 hour ago - deceit america....
1 day 4 hours ago
Democracy Links
Member's Off-site Blogs
from the dumb dungeon...
------------------------
How dumb is "denialist" Bolt?
Andrew Bolt savages Thomas Friedman because Friedman (a conservative leaning journalist) savages the Republicans as stupid, but for true stupidity readers should check out ... Andrew Bolt:
Fact: anyone who claims most sceptics are “deniers” of “global warming” are plainly fools or liars. None of the sceptics I know doubt at all that the planet has warmed in the past century. Most would agree man’s emissions are likely to have a warming influence. Friedman’s language suggest he simply does not understand the position held by those he so casually damns as stupid. Is there anything more stupid than a man contradicting an argument he doesn’t even trouble himself to understand?
What makes Bolt’s brand of stupidity worse than most is that it is protected by the impregnable smugness of the jock-thinking dumbasses. Bolt would not even suspect he’d made a zillion errors or feel the slightest wish to check whether the comfortable porkies he repeats are total crap. Yes, why take the risk of becoming unpopular by advancing an unfashionable truth?
Well, yes. It’s a merde-och press columnist who claims Hurricane Sandy is just a storm at landfall and has nothing to do with man-made warming. That is a position not one in 10 warmist scientists would refute, because they are too afraid to say so publicly... but privately they crunch the numbers and these add up. Yet Bolt advances his silly point as his ultimate proof of the idiocy of everyone else.
My God, is this man stupid
-------------------------------
and then in another zapping crap Bolt says:
I don’t think this policy of wowing the world with our sacrifices [the carbon tax] is working. Do you?
And seeing how our efforts will make no difference to the climate, shouldn’t the government be more concerned to save us money and jobs?
Yep Andrew, now it seems that you "accept" that the increasing hot air is man made, but you are in favour of doing nothing about it, because not a skerrick of increasing disasters can be "directly" attributed to global warming... And according to you, whatever we do won't work... Let me tell you the insurance industry is reeling about the oncoming costs... and the costs are going exponentially while the heat might just be increasing gently. The IPCC calculations were correct 10 years ago, now we need to double our efforts in reductions to minimise the rise of temperature at 2 degrees by 2100...
Like you I could be of the opinion we've got buckley's chances of doing so. Thus we're heading towards a 4 degrees hike minimum by 2100... Not so much because what we CAN DO won't work (including a carbon tax that pays for developing renewable sources of energy) but because we're not prepared to sacrifice enough.
By attacking Friedman, you show you are more than stupid. You are a glorified idiotic defeatist whose gift of the gab has far too much influence on conning ignoramuses, being one yourself...
----------------------------
Meanwhile Friedman, a conservative leaning journalist, says:
Whenever I hear the word “cliff,” I am reminded of something that President Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren, used to say about how we need to respond to climate change because no one can predict when it might take a disruptive, nonlinear turn. “We are driving toward a cliff in a fog,” said Holdren about the climate, and that’s always a good time “to start tapping on the brakes.” Indeed, when you think about how much financial debt we’ve built up in the market and how much carbon debt we’ve built up in the atmosphere, the wisest thing we could do as a country today is to start tapping on the brakes by both emitting less carbon to bend the emissions curve down and racking up less debt to bend our debt-to-G.D.P. curve down. Unfortunately, we are still doing neither.
At least Friedman ( a conservative leaning journalist) understands.
----------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
But suddenly the world is facing new threats... The saving-money issue that can downgrade environmental reporting...
Those who care deeply about environmental issues were understandably concerned Friday after learning that The Times was dismantling its special team – or “pod” – of seven reporters and two editors.
Beth Parke, executive director of the Society of Environmental Journalists, told InsideClimate News that The Times’s decision was “worrying.”
Symbolically, this is bad news. And symbolism matters – it shows a commitment and an intensity of interest in a crucially important topic.
In real life, it doesn’t have to be bad news. A pod’s structure, outside the major desks – Foreign, Business, National and Metro – by its nature means that the coverage is not integrated into the regular coverage of those desks, which have their own space in the paper and their own internal clout.
If coverage of the environment is not to suffer, a lot of people – including The Times’s highest ranking editors — are going to have to make sure that it doesn’t.
They say they will. But maintaining that focus will be a particular challenge in a newsroom that’s undergoing intensive change as it becomes ever more digital while simultaneously cutting costs.
- By Gus Leonisky at 12 Jan 2013 - 9:47am
- Gus Leonisky's blog
- Login or register to post comments
future generations will curse our silence...
But if we were really smart, we’d be talking about how to mitigate the ultimate damage by weaning ourselves from coal, oil and other energy sources that produce carbon emissions.
We see what looks like disaster looming but don’t even talk about it, because the politics of climate change are inconvenient. Future generations will curse our silence.
Read more about this issue:
Bill McKibben: What Obama should do now — tackle climate change
Katrina vanden Heuvel: Avoiding a climate change apocalypse
The Post’s View: California’s bold climate change experiment
Eugene Robinson: Will Hurricane Sandy be our wake-up call?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-climate-change-
more idiotic crap from andrew bolt...
From Andrew Bolt:
January 17
3:40 AM...
Even warming extremist Dr. James Hansen of NASA GISS concedes warming has paused, even if he quarrels over the cause:
The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.
Can local warmists now at least concede this basic fact, rather than sow panic based on a fire in one state or some hot spell in one city. Or is deceit in the warmist cause now not just permitted but essential?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/
------------------
A fire in ONE state?... Isn't this a sad insult to all the people who have lost their possessions in the MANY fires around in NSW and Victoria?
Okay... Yes we have had a bit of a plateau in global warming (though eight of the warmest years have been in the last decade or so), Despite this, the temperature average HAS still increased by a smidgin... But for the last 11 years, the sun has been dormant (no sun spots). As well there has been strong La Nina events — events that usually makes temperature dips quite noticeably (up to one degree in some areas), but these ones did not... Considering these two points alone and subtracting them from the scale of global temperature would actually indicate that the CO2 induced temperature INCREASED dramatically in the background.
Sure, the scientists cannot deny the "evidence" but there has NOT BEEN any cooling as there should have been with the sun being quiet and the La Nina events...
The day after Bolt wrote his crap, Sydney experienced a record temperature of 45.8 degrees Celsius!!!!! Half a degree above the previous record!... Most of the Suburbs away from the sea had records of 46.5 degrees Celsius, including the airport... If this alone is not a telltale of something weird, Andrew Bolt's blog on fire might be the only thing then...
Can we shut this bonkers up?... Is Andrew Bolt out of his mind?...
A microphone and a blog does not make an intelligent man out of an idiot... Andrew Bolt unfortunately is a deliberate idiot for profit... Sad.
bolt, polls and popes...
"Study: most engineers and earth scientists are sceptics" boldly claims Andrew Bolt... It's the new consensus he adds...I know geo-scientists who believe in god... This does not prove that god exists... Geo-scientists are a multifaceted bunch. Some harp on about the geology of this planet some specialise in atmospheric data and many work for the oil companies. Most geo-scientists in Canada are employed by the carbon intensive industry. And Canada is a special case on this planet... Anyone living in Canada would pray for a bit more warmth, apart from those who spend their summers in Saskatchewan.
But the survey quoted by Andrew Bolt sounds suspect and no matter what people believe, even in their field of expertise, it does not mean that they are right. Let's discount most engineers for a start.
Engineers do a good job at devising and making things that work using the laws of nature with a safety factor of whatever (in my days it was 5). But their bread is buttered by the carbon and cement industries directly or indirectly. So will they bite the hand that feed them? Or are they brainwashed to a particular way of accepting ideologies?. Some will "believe" out of conviction and I would be prepared to "believe" that few engineers would have indulged in hard study of the global warming conundrum, and most would vote conservative and have their hand on the heart as they sing at church on Sundays. Unless one knows the terms of the survey one cannot assume anything.
And the same goes for some of the geo-scientists in Canada. Thus one should actually peel the questions and answers of this survey which out a 1000 people may sound representative but may be not. Were complex analytical reasons given by the denialists or were they simply expediently expressing that "global warming is crap" in the tick-a-box of the questionnaire?
Here we have our own Andrew Bolt smiling like a cat that had fallen in a giant bowl of cream...
And now after the debunked creationism theory that "global warming is not happening", we move to the the next level of "intelligent design" where humans are not responsible for this irrefutable warming... See how it's done?... And even in the "case" humans were responsible (or not) global warming is "beneficiary to all", on this lovely planet...
But one thing for sure, the survey of Canadian geo-thingies, there are some who actually believe global warming is induce by human burning of fossil fuels... Amongst those some would have spend time studying the problem in depth and would have come to the general scientific consensus that global warming is Anthropogenic... Which it is... Humans have been approximately pumping as much extra CO2 as there was already in the "natural" atmosphere.
"Study: most engineers and earth scientists are sceptics" This headline by Andrew Bold of course is fraudulent. And he would be a dork if he did not know it... It's designed to stir my personal possum. You've succeeded, Andrew...
As the "scientific" survey was only done in Canada, it's limited to a bunch of cowboys who drill holes in the ice to get to shale and gas. Sorry my friends who live in Canada, but I know you think the same thing about the drillers...
At least ("only", in James Taylor's report) 36 per cent of such scientists and engineers believe that humans are the cause of global warming.... "while a strong majority" believe that nature is the force behind global warming (define strong majority... Is there a proportion who admitted they did not know? is this designed to let us believe that 64 per cent believed that "nature was responsible"?... Sure... let me say that again sure... "Believe"... Some people believe in the tooth fairy... As well one can "believe" that mixing 'engineers" in this probed group would slant the figure BECAUSE EARTH SCIENCE ISN'T THE AREA OF EXPERTISE of engineers and the result would rely on "beliefs'... Let's say here that out of the thirty six per cent of those who "believe" global warming is anthropogenic, quite a few of them would have studied the problem... Thus they would KNOW...
Further more, the article quoted by Andrew Bolt is coming from the same source as most of his rants: a fellow called James Taylor, Contributor (Forbes magazine) "I write about energy and environment issues.". This in itself could be suspect but when one read all the energy and environmental article by this fellow one would be a dope not to smell a rat... "Global warming is beneficial to Africa" "The Skeptics Are Thrashing The Alarmists In The Global Warming Debate" "About Global Warming, United Nations Doubles Down On Ignorance" "Warmists Display Cowardice and Hypocrisy In Avoiding Global Warming Debate" and the really funny one: "Fortified By Global Warming, Crop Production Keeps Breaking Records"... not to mention that the grain crop in the US went down the drain because of the major drought of 2012...
Not only that it is undeniable that passed a certain point, plants react badly to extra heat. Direct sunlight, when the general ambient temperature is more than 45 degrees Celsius in the shade, is going to do some damage. Not only that, simple peasant observations like mine as well tell me that damage is done.
And the Forbes Thought Of The Day?“ Let a man practice the profession which he best knows. ”— Cicero
Engineers are no climate scientists... To include them in a survey about climate change is okay as long as one does not ask about belief but about deep experimental scientific knowledge on the subject. "What is the source of your belief" would be a necessary part of any survey about science.
And so one could accept the fact that one or two degrees in global warming might have some benefit... This is the line taken by most hard businessmen I know. I personally don't think so, though "I don't know"... All I know is that an increase of 2 degrees Celsius on this planet will raise the sea level by at least 45 centimetres. Beyond that at the rate we, humans, are pumping CO2 and methane in the atmosphere your guess is as bad as mine: things aren't going to improve... Irene, Sandy, tornadoes, snow storms, early springs plus bush-fires and record temperature broken every year... more humidity and changing weather...
Ah I nearly forgot... Andrew claims that meteorologists are all skeptics about global warming... Did I mention that many of these dudes in their own learned profession would be at a loss to predict Sydney's weather three days in advance?... Even with the most advanced computers at their fingertips?...
If Einstein was still alive today he would see with horror the way science is treated by denialists... But then he would be thrashed by the other geniuses — Andrew Bolt, Miranda, Janet and Alan Jones... Einstein? Not a chance in hell...
And Sydney weather is another kettle of fish...
May be the changing world weather is why the pope is giving up his cozy throne...
media watched...
Former Media Watch host Paul Barry will return to the chair in July, replacing outgoing presenter Jonathan Holmes.ABC confirmed the appointment this afternoon.The news comes after conservative News Ltd columnist and Channel Ten host Andrew Bolt wrote an open letter to ABC managing director Mark Scott, offering himself as host."You must be mortified that in the 24 years of Media Watch devoted to detecting such media sins as bias and group-think, not once has it had a host not of the Left," he wrote."... ABC ideologues would stone you for hiring me. (Could you compromise by picking Gerard Henderson?)"But it would be harder for me. I'd have to leave a successful show and betray a network that's been fantastic to me. Still, duty calls. I'm game. The real question is, are you?"Bolt even offered to ''rip up'' his contract with Channel Ten, where he presents The Bolt Report, if it meant hosting Media Watch.Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/paul-barry-to-return-as-media-watch-host-20130502-2iumx.html#ixzz2S8AnsLpu
-------------------------------------
Can one trust someone ready to "rip up his contract"? Can we trust someone prepared to do so, so he can get a coveted gig? Or is this a tease?... Bolt? What an idiot!!!, What an untrustworthy goose!!! What a double dealer.... Thank you ABC for telling Bolt to shove off...