Day to Day Politics: “IT'S TIME” – Marriage…

Sunday 24 September 2017 At the time of writing the following countries supported…

Australia's shameful treatment of refugees and asylum seekers…

By Julie Grint Many issues about human rights are dear to me as…

Benjamin Netanyahu, Penguins and the United Nations

“That’s why Israel’s policy regarding the nuclear deal with Iran is very…

Bernardi and Abbott: a shared pyschosis

And the week finished on a spectacularly self-mutilating note for the No…

The strategies of a madman

By Dr George Venturini Heinz Alfred ‘Henry’ Kissinger obtained a Ph.D. at Harvard…

Subsidies, blackouts and rising energy prices, but it…

While the Coalition blame blackouts and rising energy prices on renewable energy…

Day to Day Politics: Is Tony never to…

Saturday 23 September 2017 In writing this I will probably be accused of…

Why Women Should Never Have Been Given The…

Recently I heard about a suffragette who threw a brick through a…

«
»
Facebook

The facts versus Andrew Bolt

Image courtesy of news.com.au

Image from news.com.au

I don’t know how many times I’ve read Andrew Bolt’s claims that global warming stopped 16 years ago. Announcing the claim, on one of many occasions he recently asked:

How many more years of no warming before global warmists admit their theory is broken?

New data released two weeks ago shows the pause in global warming has now lasted 16 years.

Now where did he get that information from? Maybe he read it in a newspaper. Maybe this one:

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released . . . and here is the chart to prove it.

Note the dates. Bolt’s article was published 18 October last year, the British article on 13 October: five days earlier.  In between, on 16 October the MET Office* disputed the claim:

Met Office denies claims that latest data shows global warming slowdown.

Reports suggesting that global warming stopped 16 years ago are “misleading”, the Met Office said yesterday.

Why do Andrew Bolt and many right-wing commentators prefer to rely on misleading media reports to push their ideologies? I’m of the opinion that there is no crime in denying climate change – you can believe in it or not – but if you are going to publicly argue for or against it, it would be a good idea, for a start, to know what you’re talking about.

In my opinion Andrew Bolt doesn’t. But it hardly deters him from attacking climate change believers with his poisoned pen whilst continuing to maintain his discredited argument that global warming had ceased. He was overjoyed at the sacking of Tim Flannery and the Climate Commission, writing:

New Environment Minster Greg Hunt made only one mistake yesterday when sacking Tim Flannery and junking his Climate Commission.

Hunt actually thanked the alarmist for his work.

Thank Flannery? Hunt should instead have asked Flannery how much of his $180,000 a year salary he’d refund after getting so many predictions wrong.

He should have told Flannery it was disgraceful to even now claim global warming was increasing, when atmospheric temperatures have failed to rise for 15 years.

No sooner had the ink dried on his article when world renown environmentalist David Suzuki appeared on the ABC’s Q&A and Bolt was at it again:

Oh. My. God.

David Suzuki on the very first question is revealed as a complete know-nothing. His questioner tells him that the main climate data sets show no real warming for some 15 years.

Suzuki asks for the references, which he should have known if he knew anything of the science.

His questioner then lists them: UAH, RSS, HadCrut and GISS – four of the most basic measurement systems of global temperature.

Suzuki asks what they are.

Anyone interested in global warming should know right there that Suzuki has absolutely no understanding of what he is talking about.

In my opinion he is a phoney.

Here, for Suzuki’s information, is the GISS measurement.

Bolt’s rant was backed up with a number of charts he had obtained from the link he provided to climate4you.com. I took a look at the site. It was overflowing with charts contradicting Bolt’s argument. His claim that “atmospheric temperatures have failed to rise for 15 years” is rebuked on the very site he referred to. Here’s a typical chart showing global monthly average surface air temperature since 1979, according to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), USA:

It doesn’t look like Andrew is good at sourcing information, does it?

I think I can do a better job than him. Here’s something from the Los Angeles Times for a start: 2012 was among the 10 hottest years on record globally. Here’s what it says:

The average global temperature in 2012 was among the 10 hottest since official record keeping began in 1880, with most of the world — from North America to far northeastern Asia — experiencing higher-than-usual temperatures, according to related reports issued Tuesday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Speaking of NASA, they have this on their website:

Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner.

Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.

Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gasses produced by human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.

According to the IPCC, the extent of climate change effects on individual regions will vary over time and with the ability of different societal and environmental systems to mitigate or adapt to change.

The IPCC predicts that increases in global mean temperature of less than 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) above 1990 levels will produce beneficial impacts in some regions and harmful ones in others. Net annual costs will increase over time as global temperatures increase.

“Taken as a whole,” the IPCC states, “the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.”

Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC:

  • North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them.
  • Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation.
  • Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe.
  • Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised.
  • Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions.

Not a bad source to reference, in my opinion. Far better that referencing a journalist whose claim was almost immediately shot down in flames. And while I’m finding all these facts here’s one from our very own Bureau of Meteorology who arguably, know a little bit more about our weather than Andrew Bolt. From their article Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record, again: Australia’s warmest September on record comes these Bolt defying revelations:

Australia’s record for warmest 12-month period has been broken for a second consecutive month. This continues a remarkable sequence of warmer-than-average months for Australia since June 2012.

September 2013 was easily Australia’s warmest September on record. The national average temperature for September was +2.75 °C above the long-term (1961–1990) average, which also sets a record for Australia’s largest positive anomaly for any monthly mean temperature. The previous record of +2.66 °C was set in April 2005.

The mean temperature for Australia, averaged over the 12 months from October 2012 to September 2013, was 1.25 °C above the long-term average. This was also 0.17 °C warmer than any 12-month period prior to 2013.

The previous record, set over September 2012 to August 2013, was +1.11 °C above the long-term average, and the record preceding the current warm spell was +1.08 °C, set between February 2005 and January 2006.

Temperatures for the calendar year to date (January to September) have also been the warmest on record, at 1.31 °C above the long-term average, well above the figure set for January to September 2005 (+1.07 °C). 2005 currently holds the record for Australia’s warmest calendar year.

The past 18 months have been characterised by widespread heat across Australia. The mean temperature has been above average over the entire continent.

In the past 12-month period a large number of mean temperature records have fallen across Australia including:

  • Australia’s warmest month on record (January)
  • Australia’s warmest September on record
  • Australia’s largest positive monthly anomaly on record (September)
  • Australia’s warmest summer on record (December 2012 to February 2013)
  • Australia’s warmest January to September period on record
  • Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record (broken twice, for the periods ending August and September)
  • Indeed, Australia’s warmest period on record for all periods 1 to 18 months long ending September 2013

Two significant daily maximum temperature records were also set this year:

  • Australia’s hottest summer day on record (7 January)
  • Australia’s warmest winter day on record (31 August)

The periods inclusive of September 2013 have also resulted in numerous State and Territory mean temperature records including:

  • Warmest September on record for South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and the Northern Territory
  • Largest positive monthly anomaly on record for South Australia and Queensland (September)
  • The warmest January to September period on record for South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and the Northern Territory, and also for Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide
  • The warmest 12-month period on record for South Australia, the Northern Territory, and southern Australia

In addition to these records, and those set during the heat events of January and autumn, many individual stations have set records for early season heat or September record highs.

Generally above-average temperatures have persisted with few breaks since September 2012. The period has been characterised by long periods of warmer-than-average days and a distinct lack of cold weather. Nights have also been warmer than average, but less so than daytime temperatures.

Every calendar month since September 2012 has recorded temperatures at least 0.5 °C above average, with eight of those thirteen months topping 1.0 °C above average including January, April, May, July, August and September of 2013. Widespread record warmth has also been recorded in the oceans around Australia.

I am sure that none of this will be of interest to Andrew Bolt. I’m also sure we’ll keep hearing that global warming stopped 16 years ago despite evidence to the contrary. But we have one thing to be thankful for Andrew Bolt for: whilst he keeps writing articles denying creditable evidence and supporting discredited sources, and continuing to promote a raft of fallacies which add a sweetener to his bitter hatred, this can only be good for the growth of independent media. When people stack the truth up against Andrew Bolt . . . they’ll see that the truth wins.

  • The Met Office is the UK’s National Weather Service.

 


80 comments

  1. Christopher

    Urrrrrggghhhh!!!!!andrew is such a boring tit!!!!! Why do people even watch or listen to him……..have never …….will never… Ever ..watch his show!!!!!!!only had to put up up with him when he appeared on ABC..thank the gods.hallelujah!!!!!!! I don’t ever have to suffer him again!!!!dreadful conservative cretin!!!

  2. Fed up

    Last Sunday, for some reason, Bolt was in his glory. Celebrating Flannery going I suspect. Repeated every lie he has ever made, in connection to climate change.

    What was worse, was his claim that Abbott had proven boats can be sent back, Claimed what no other site dare claim, that Abbott had sent two boat loads back. No mention of the many that downed.

    One would think, if no once else was claiming this, he might just have it wrong.
    In fact that was the case, but I suspect, that Bolt would not care less.

    The fact is, the boats were picked up by the Navy, and transferred to Indonesians, under an agreement, put in place between Labor and the Indonesians.

    I suspect that Abbott might have been told this by the Indonesians, Could be one reason, they are confused by what Abbott says.

    Yes, the Navy did what they have done before. Yes, they can do it again. I do not believe that is what Abbott and Morrison means.

    It gets harder to listen to Bolt.

  3. Gilly

    Andrew Bolt is paid very good money to draw attention to himself, it improves advertising revenue that comes from a higher profile. Like most other “shock jocks” monetary considerations are paramount, truth or facts are a minor distraction. Don’t throw the ball back by trying to debate him, find the right questions to ask, like what does he get out of it or who pays and why?

  4. gordonwa

    Thanks for this Michael,

    Bolt and other deniers love to cherry-pick the data. For example, why do they always choose to look at temperatures from 1998, why not from 1990 or 2000? Simple, because these other dates don’t suit their argument. 1998 was a particularly hot year so it may be argued that if subsequent years don’t exceed or match it then global warming has stalled. If we look at temperatures from 1999 (yes I’m cherry-picking for effect) then there is a steady increasing trend.

    Deniers never answer if you ask them what is so special about 1998. The real warming trend is quite clear over a longer period as Michael’s graph shows.

  5. Bob Rafto

    Methinks Bolt is a shit stirrer. What else has he got going for him for people to talk about him?

    The question that should be put to Bolt is “You campaigned against the carbon tax on the basis climate change is crap, now will you campaign against the LNP’s direct action plan that will cost $3.2B?”

    That question would make him squirm.

  6. Roswell

    I’ve never known of a person who is so full of crap to have such a large ego.

  7. olddavey

    Climate Change
    A bit like the cooling system in your car with a slow water leak. OK for a while, then a little warmer, then a little more warmer and if you don’t do something about it suddenly it’s all too late and the car’s f*cked.
    At least you can take your f*cked car to the mechanic and have it fixed.
    Try that with a f*cked planet!
    Bolt is a dolt.

  8. lyne

    Who is Andrew Bolt. Whoever he is, he talks shit.

  9. Ricky Pann

    Brand Bolt. I wonder when the self promoting brand pushing fools like him, Hadley and Jones will stop embarrassing themselves, quoting incorrect discredited, inaccurate data pretending to be scientists and fess up to the fact that its all about selling advertising. Its actually the new meter of lazy thinking, low intelligence and gullibility in Australian society when someone quotes these people.

  10. kayelee1

    Andrew Bolt, the IPA, Christopher Monckton, Mannkal, mining, Rupert Murdoch, Gina Rinehart.

    Round
    Like a circle in a spiral
    Like a wheel within a wheel

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX2kMAfJggU

  11. kayelee1

    IPA 70th Birthday Bash: Guests were such luminaries such as Rupert Murdoch (keynote speaker), Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell, Andrew Bolt (MC), Victorian Premier Denis Napthine, Melbourne Mayor Robert Doyle… with a special address by Tony Abbott.

  12. cuppa

    A symptom of the Liberals’ weakness that they need bought propagandists to prop them up.

  13. boombi

    three alarming thins:-
    1 that the herald sun actually employs this man and the its editor doesn’t even flinch that his paper is promoting outright inaccuracies and factual distortions …….ie lies
    2. that the average journalist doesn’t rage against this mans abuse of their profession .
    3. that any one actually buys this paper

  14. CMMC

    “Parody no longer has a vocation” territory here, but meet the British comic book character, Roger Mellie, “The Man on the Telly”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Mellie

  15. Doone Wyborn

    Most of the extra heat trapped by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is going into the oceans. This is resulting in changing ocean currents which results in year to year temperature changes in the atmosphere. The rates of change are unprecidented for all human history by orders of magnitude.

  16. Orkology

    Of course, these averages are above the 1951-1980 long term average, which itself is higher than the average of all instrumental records (and comes 100 years or so after the start of major industrialisation and therefore the likely start of AGW.
    Few people on either sidecof the argument seem to acknowledge that.

  17. patsy

    ANDREW DOLT…..how do so many idiots keep him in a job …….ugly person every article he writes is about labor…..or one of their policies……he is so far up himself I wonder if he ever looks in a mirror…something must have happened to him as a child.for him to be such a horrible adult…but then money seems to keep him so ugly…..really dislike this person

  18. Ian Edward Cleland

    Unfortunately his ilk keeps the uninformed masses informed.

    So to all those who are commenting what are you doing personally to reverse the options of the uninformed masses. Who for the most part really do not give a ripe about climate change or its consequences. Yes they will be the ones crying because somebody else did not fix their problems for them.

    We live in a world of me – not us – until that changes expect more of the same.

  19. Ian Edward Cleland

    Can I say that again with a correction:

    Unfortunately his ilk keeps the uninformed masses informed.

    So to all those who are commenting what are you doing personally to reverse the opinions of the uninformed masses. Who for the most part really do not give a ripe about climate change or its consequences. Yes they will be the ones crying because somebody else did not fix their problems for them.

    We live in a world of me – not us – until that changes expect more of the same.

  20. Adam Smith

    Congratulations on a great article Michael Taylor. As I understand it, Mr Bolt is reportedly paid by Mr Murdoch.

  21. Geoff Of Epping

    Bolt……Dimwitted Dutch Prick. I pay not attention to this absurd caricature of a human being. Arrogance and stupidity are not an endearing combination. Combined with hypocrisy the total effect is simply toxic and must be avoided at all cost.

  22. rue

    Here we have a journalist who went back to University to complete an Arts Degree only to fail within a year. Stick to your so called ‘profession’ and leave the science to the; “Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking…” Leo Tolstoy

  23. Deena Bennett

    @Gilly
    October 3, 2013 • 9:59 pm

    Excellent Gilly, always follow the money, and it will give you all the information.

  24. Mark Norrie

    Andrew Bolt is a complete halfwit – he dropped out of University in first year – so who is he to criticize people like David Suzuki. What an odious man!

  25. Brian

    Controversy draws attention. Bolt sells attention along with his arse though he has no principles to offer. I ignore him. Even responding to this article irks me. Apologies to the author.

  26. archiearchive FCD

    Bolt is a dolt. And a liar and a fraud. Climate change is happening and is going to destroy human civilisation. The argument comes down to one very simple comparison. I have to pay my local council to dump my rubbish. If I were a global conglomerate I pay absolutely squat to dump MY rubbish, including carbon dioxide, whereever I want. Into the sea, into the atmosphere. And little minds with Bolted-on little ambitions promote free rubbish dumping to enrich the already obscenely rich. Even though there will be nothing left for humanity or of civilisation four generations from now!

  27. Michael Taylor

    Archie, didn’t life on earth end with the final siren last Saturday?

    Disappointing result. I felt for you. Umpiring was dreadful and cost you the game.

  28. gordonwa

    When I talk to people who do not accept the evidence of global warming I try not to browbeat them about the science as they have already learned the denier’s mantra. Instead I talk about the economic benefits of acting locally. I tell them I have insulated my roof (not through the ‘pink batts’ scheme), installed solar panels and a heat pump for hot water then I boast about only having a small power bill in winter and none at all for the rest of the year. That gets their attention. I then rub it in by saying truthfully that I did it because I am concerned about the environment and global warming and that the economic benefits are just a happy spin off. They may still deny global warming but they can see the economic advantages of ‘rational self interest’.

    My hope is that they too may go green because it makes economic sense.

  29. Fed up

    I noticed that Morrison did not claim they have already turned boats back, as Bolt claims.

    ABC 24

  30. nathan

    Why try and debunk Bolt ? He was debunked a long time ago, he is the “pin up” boy for all university’s in Australia of how not to write an argument , lets just ignore him please

  31. brickbob

    Even more crazy than Bolt are the morons who read and listen to him who i refer to as the ” Bolterites” and whats worse they breed and indoctrinate their off spring and soon their will be thousands of little ”Bolterites running round the country scaring the shit out of vulnerable gullible people.

  32. kayelee1

    “THE STANDARD PRACTICE of mainstream journalists is to interview by taking the worst most extreme antitheses and/or “talking points” from deniers (for example), and using them as questions for climate scientists (for example). Similarly, in interviewing a Labor minister, the questions are obtained from the most recent talking points issued by the Liberal Party. This practice has become so ubiquitous as to be accepted as merely “the way things are done”.

    I guess if you asked a journalist about this they would, after expressing surprise that you were questioning this approach, express a couple of reasons for it. One would be that it saves time; that journalists, in this time of media cost-cutting and job-shedding, are simply unable to research a topic in any meaningful way before doing an interview. Indeed, I suspect that the idea of “research” being anything except reading something from an opponent is now foreign to journalism in Australia.

    The other thing they might well say, in the Manichaean world that is modern Australian journalism, is that by acting as the mouthpiece for the most extreme opposing view to that of the interview subject, they are giving the viewer/listener/reader the benefit of the full range of opinion available on a topic.”

    http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/business/media-2/faux-balance-and-poor-research-creates-a-false-narrative/

  33. archiearchive FCD

    Michael, the world DID end last Saturday! I may one day resurrect as a human being but at the moment I am completely allergic to anything brown or yellow. So no steaks or eggs or chocolate icecream for me! Whhaaaaaaaaaaaa

  34. Gilly

    I think much of the denial stems from a lack of understanding of the consequences. Warming of the atmosphere leading to more frequent and severe local weather events. Warming of the oceans leading to more frequent, longer lasting and mare severe regional weather events. I believe some insurance companies are already factoring climate change into actuarial calculations of premiums. .

  35. Adam Smith

    @Gilly, I can definitely assure you, the International Risk Underwriters have long ago factored in Climate change impacts on man made global structures, as have the IMF and the World Bank. People like Bolt are dullards and if ordinary people listen to them they do so at their own peril.

  36. dave the brickie

    Definition of buffoon in dictionaries should simply show a picture of Bolt.I think his brain(?) is clogged up. (Apologies to thinking Dutch people).

  37. kgb16

    Bolt is only interested in his own pocket and his own personal welfare…..typical of a lot of our so called commentators now days.

  38. Bob Evans

    He is funded, protected and given a soap box on behalf of powerful forces. He is the pseudo fossil fuel lobbyist.

    I wonder if tomorrow, the fossil fuel and mining sector pulled their funding from the Liberal party, would he still have the same stance? Or would he fall behind European conservatives who largely back the science and encourage mitigation?

  39. Kaye Lee

    Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Christopher Monckton, and all those other fossil fuel prostitutes should be tried for crimes against humanity

    “The oceans are more acidic now than they’ve been at any time in the last 300 million years, conditions that marine scientists warn could lead to a mass extinction of key species.

    Scientists from the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) published their State of the Oceans report Thursday, a biennial study that surveys how oceans are responding to human impacts. The researchers found the current level of acifification is “unprecedented” and that the overall health of the ocean is declining at a much faster rate than previously thought.

    “We are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change, and exposing organisms to intolerable evolutionary pressure,” the report states. “The next mass extinction may have already begun.”

    It’s not just acidification that’s threatening the oceans, either — the report found the oceans are facing a “deadly trio” of stressors, with warming waters and decreasing oxygen also majorly affecting marine ecosystem health. Warming waters coupled with ocean acidification are posing increasingly severe threats to Antarctic krill, which play a vital role in the Antarctic marine food chain, and are also helping lead to huge outbreaks of jellyfish. And as water temperatures rise, coral is increasingly vulnerable to bleaching.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/03/2725431/unprecedented-ocean-acidification/

  40. diannaart

    Excellent work, Michael.

    Thank you

  41. Nanzi

    I turned on the tv last week to accidentally find Andrew Bolt – who I have never seen or heard before. It took all of about 30 seconds before I couldn’t take anymore!

  42. Rainbow

    Using facts to challenge right wing nutters isn’t going to get you far.

  43. Ann

    Bolt can be handicapped. But it requires large amount of voices to channel 10 who allows him to do this with free abandon.

  44. Dalystondave

    Anyone who has seen V for Vendetta will recognize the Bolt stereotype immediately. And the results of his neo-Nazism.

  45. Jim

    I was in China a month or so ago. Shanghai had its hottest day ever, around 42.7, they had their first ever 3 consecutive days over 40 while I was there. A few days later they repeated this record, another 3 days of 40 or more.

    I wonder if Andrew Bolt knew this fact…I will bet he wouldn’t report it in the filthy paper he writes for.

    Anyone who writes for Murdoch !!!

    I am sure Joseph G, Hitler’s main propagandist, would have employed Bolt

  46. Robert Vidas

    Absolutely sensational work!!! I’m posting this on my Facebook page. Keep up the good work; it’s going to be a very long three years–and maybe six! 🙁

    RV

  47. Wayne

    Sorry for correcting you but it’s not called Global Warming any more, it’s now called Climate Change. You see they had to change its name when data showed that the global temperatures are not actually getting warmer as predicted so to stop confusion and also questions they changed its name.

  48. Wayne

    Now you have me convinced Climate change is a crock! the graph you produced shows no increase of temperatures for the last 10 years and then you tell us 2012 was in the top 10 hottest years, I’m guessing by top 10 you mean it was the tenth hottest year (if it was the hottest year you would have said so, same if it was the fifth hottest) so when were the 9 hotter years please?

  49. Bob Evans

    Sorry for correcting you but it’s not called Global Warming any more, it’s now called Climate Change. You see they had to change its name when data showed that the global temperatures are not actually getting warmer as predicted so to stop confusion and also questions they changed its name.

    Oh really Wayne? Care to provide evidence for this? When was the date?

    Both terms have in fact been used for decades and still are. They mean different things.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=–3tYa4AUyc

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ

  50. Bob Evans

    Now you have me convinced Climate change is a crock!

    I’m thinking your ideology made up your mind and ignored the evidence a looooooong time ago.

  51. Kaye Lee

    THE FACTS VS WAYNE

    THIS year is shaping to be Australia’s hottest since records began with the most recent 12-month period showing average temperatures across the country more than 1C hotter.

    Data from the Bureau of Meteorology shows the average temperature for the 12 months to the end of August was 22.92C, 1.1C above the average, surpassing the previous high between February 1, 2005, and January 31, 2006, which was 1.08C above average.

    However, this month has been noticeably warmer than usual, with 30 Queensland towns having their hottest ever September day on Thursday, while parts of NSW also saw record September temperatures.

    The weather bureau’s David Jones said while there were still a few days to run in September, a clear pattern showed the month would be warmer than average, with the national mean temperature likely to be more than 2C higher than normal — the previous highest for a September was 1.66C in 1983 — and he expected several states to set records for the hottest September on record.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/arguments-rage-as-year-shapes-up-to-be-australias-hottest-on-record/story-e6frg6xf-1226728843824

    The hottest September on record has ended the hottest year in Queensland since records began more than 100 years ago.

    Bureau of Meteorology forecasters were in the process of crunching the official figures on Tuesday morning, but preliminary results indicated Queensland had experienced the hottest 12 months on record.

    The Sunshine State also recorded its hottest September on record, with daily temperatures frequently 4.09 degrees above the long-term monthly average.

    Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-has-hottest-12-months-on-record-20131001-2upap.html#ixzz2gstd1TeC

    “This September was the hottest September on record following a year that has already broken records for the hottest day, the hottest January and the hottest summer in recorded history,” said Professor Steffen in a story by the Sydney Morning Herald. He also makes a case that while Australia suffers heat waves from time to time, the sheer number of records being broken by the present climate is alarming. “Although Australia has always had heat waves, hot days and bushfires, climate change is increasing the risk of more frequent and longer heat waves and more extreme hot days, as well as exacerbating bushfire conditions.”

    In a past study made by NASA on a global scale, the 10 hottest calendar years all occurred in the last 15 years.

    http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/511326/20131004/climate-change-bushfire-australia-temperature-council.htm#.UlCBe1q4bIU

  52. Adam Smith

    Most of know what Ideology is, at least I hope so. But an even greater number, except those not taught science, know what fact is. Anyone can look up Fourier a scientist who started measuring the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere and man’s impact upon it more than tWo CenturiEs ago,

  53. Ann

    I just prefer not to have to listen to him and I voted with my finger and brain and do not watch him. The people he tries to bully on his show like Mr Hawker last week. He was almost out of his seat across the table at him to make sure his opinion was the only one that counted

  54. Ann

    Lets hope we don’t have to wait 3 years.

  55. Michael Taylor

    Wayne, that graph was just one of many on the site Bolt linked to which in fact shows his claims to be wrong.

    And I think you’re missing the point: Bolt misleads people, which is the basis of this post.

  56. Francine

    They proved a long time ago that out pollutants deplete the ozone layer. Enough said if our pollutants can do that!!!

  57. Francine

    I mean our pollutants!

  58. Dean Tooker

    Check how many people of importance Bolt follows on Twitter. 1 when I looked the other day- shows how good his sources are. Let him carry on with the dribble he does- we know better than his scant regard for looking after the planet which has nurtured all of us.

  59. Kaye Lee

    Apparently the IMF and the World Bank don’t listen to the Bolt Report.

    “The world’s finance ministers should focus on two elements to tackle climate change: setting the “right price” on carbon emissions and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde said overnight.

    At a panel on the opening day of their 2013 autumn meeting, Lagarde and World Bank Group President Jim Young Kim said climate change was a priority for their lending institutions, the first time the two had addressed the issue together in public.

    Lagarde said measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can add much needed revenue to national economies and steer countries toward the development of cleaner renewable energy.

    “There are two things that they should focus on. One is get the (carbon) pricing right and we can help them with that,” Lagarge said, referring to measures such as applying carbon taxes and and establishing emissions trading schemes.

    “The second thing we can do is gradually phase out and remove the subsidies that apply to energies, and particularly fossil energies,” Lagarde said.

    The subsidisation of fossil fuels currently amounts to upwards of $485 billion, she said.

    Kim said the World Bank is focused on three major areas: ensuring sustainable energy for all countries, supporting low-carbon urban planning, and shaping “climate smart” agricultural programs.

    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/10/9/policy-politics/carbon-price-key-says-imf

  60. Kaye Lee

    I reckon Joe will be seating up a storm trying to explain why we are getting RID of a carbon tax when everyone else is recommending and working out how to best introduce one.

    “Mr Hockey is attending the Group of 20 finance ministers’ and central bank governors’ meeting in Washington, as well as the IMF and World Bank annual meetings.”

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/hockey-in-us-for-finance-talks-20131009-2v6p8.html#ixzz2hDZfWZGI

  61. Adam Smith

    @Kaye Lee, It will be interesting to see how his new advisors will steer his dialogue at the meeting, because left on his own he has demonstrated a peculiar “dullard” styled understanding about the impacts caused by the GFC as we’ve all witnessed from his own reported tight-little “thin-lipped” mouth? After all, Abbott immediately sacked highly respected advisors to the previous government; advisors whom saved Australians from losing their homes, as happened in the USA & elsewhere in the world like Spain and Ireland etc.

  62. Adam Smith

    @Kaye Lee, and the implications for international risk management will be profound. If Australia fails to demonstrate a pathway to mitigate climate change impacts the people will have to pay a very high price because they’ll discover that Insurance providers cannot accept all the risks, and if they cannot accept all the risks, then the lenders may not accept the risks either or on the other hand for some calculated period they’ll charge higher interest rates, reduce valuations or reduce the time frame for repayment of loans etc., to cover the risk. How clever is the Liberal Party as they see their voting base marked down in value? Oh, it will be interesting to observe as well, the Palmer Party. Can Palmer afford to support Abbott to hurt his own constituencies interests? The simple fact is, that in our economic world we describe as globalisation, everything is connected to everything else, but the overriding principals upon which everything is finally connected revolves around the value we must place on our living planet Earth. If we fail in this we will have begun a global misery for future generations, which may end up in the destruction of Catholicism as revealed in the book of Revelations thanks to the madness of extreme nutters elected to govern.

  63. Adam Smith

    @Kaye Lee, as you might know Free-Trade-Agreements are very sensitive nation to nation subjects. For instance, if nations enter into an agreement it must benefit the parties equally, mutually, anything less will see a failure, one gaining strength over the other. By definition, FTA’s allow member countries to pursue discriminatory policies vis-a’-vis non members, and have often been a stumbling block for multilateral liberalisation (the model I prefer) which involves many countries that are not a signatory to an FTA. That is why I believe China is very careful in her reported stance for negotiating an FTA with Australia, given the FTA arrangement the Howard Government made with the USA less than 10 years ago, following the Agreements made between the USA and other American countries. Mr Abbott’s reported comments that he wants a quick deal with China may not be how China herself views the issues, given her commitments already made with other nations. Of course some will argue that FTA’s enhance the scarcity of negotiating resources for multilateral negotiations and may thus continue to undermine the efforts undertaken by the World Trade Organisation for global free trade. It is also often agreed that an FTA is supposed to cover “substantially all trade” by the WTO, of which we are a founding member. How will Mr Abbott set about defining our future role as a member of the WTO? Can he clarify nation to nation FTA’s as begun under Howard whilst remaining a voting member of the WTO. And how will smaller Pacific nations be affected?

  64. Kaye Lee

    I would like to know what credentials Peta Credlin has to sit in on trade talks. When Tony was brown-nosing with his new best friend yesterday, the Japanese government, Credlin was sitting next to him at the table. Surely we have economists and trade experts who are better qualified to advise him during these negotiations? This is getting scary. She is reminding me of Rasputin.

  65. diannaart

    Terrific following your conversation Kaye Lee and Adam – this is the type of dialogue we need to be having across the public spectrum.

    Thank you

  66. ()

    Three cheers for the LA Times:

    As for letters on climate change, we do get plenty from those who deny global warming. And to say they “deny” it might be an understatement: Many say climate change is a hoax, a scheme by liberals to curtail personal freedom. …

    I’m no expert when it comes to our planet’s complex climate processes or any scientific field. Consequently, when deciding which letters should run among hundreds on such weighty matters as climate change, I must rely on the experts — in other words, those scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review.

    Further:

    Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying “there’s no sign humans have caused climate change” is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.

    Indeed! A factual inaccuracy. Journalism is on trial but some at least have standards.

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-climate-change-letters-20131008,0,871615.story

  67. Kaye Lee

    Earth may experience a radically different climate already within 34 years, forever changing life as we know it, said a study Wednesday that aims to bring the dangers of global warming into sharper focus.

    On current trends of greenhouse-gas emissions, 2047 will mark the year at which the climate at most places on Earth will shift beyond documented extremes, it said.

    “The work demonstrates that we are pushing the ecosystems of the world out of the environment in which they evolved into wholly new conditions that they may not be able to cope with. Extinctions are likely to result,” commented Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science’s global ecology department.

    In predominantly developing countries, over one billion people under an optimistic scenario, and five billion under a business-as-usual scenario, live in areas that will experience extreme climates before 2050,” study co-author Ryan Longman said.

    “This raises concerns for changes in the supply of food and water, human health, wider spread of infectious diseases, heat stress, conflicts and challenges to economies.

    Under a business-as-usual emissions scenario, the team predicted dates of “climate departure” ranging from 2020 for Manokwari in Indonesia, 2029 for Lagos in Nigeria and 2031 for Mexico City, to 2066 for Reykjavik in Iceland and 2071 in Anchorage, Alaska.

    “Climate departure” is the point at which extremes measured over the past 150 years, the period for which weather data is considered reliable, become the norm.

    “If the assessment… proves accurate, conservation practitioners take heed — the climate-change race is not only on, it is fixed, with the extinction finish line looming closest for the tropics,” Eric Post of Pennsylvania State University’s biology department wrote in a comment on the findings.

  68. Michael Taylor

    Rely on the experts, suggests the article.

    Can’t argue with that.

  69. Adam Smith

    @Kaye Lee, and let me add that if the “social” economic model being secretly implemented by Abbott, our “free-fair-go” styled democracy, brick by brick is being carefully dismantled. And therein is the rub. Will the reasons for being Liberal become a reason for being an autocracy? You see, the whole point of democracy is being trampled upon by Abbott and his mandated politicians. But how their legitimacy to do, in a sense, as they please calls in question legitimacy by any government to be elected by a majoritarian process. Take the Palmer Party, they weren’t elected by a majoritarian process so as they make deals with individual Senators, will they trash their reason for being so that Abbott by feeding off their support can even become more stoic?

  70. Kaye Lee

    I listened to Clive last night on Lateline. He already has a lot of money. He said we are not career politicians looking for re-election. We will do whatever is in the best interest of the people and we need advice from experts to interpret the information and any bills that may be proposed. Whilst it is hard to not be cynical about a business man who has made many millions from mining, Clive is a bit of a wild card and it may well be worth writing to him asking him for help .

  71. John

    Andrew Bolt is a an no significance failed journalist who having failed to achieve his goal in life, was recruited by wealthy right wing persons who wished to get their self interested views to the masses , it is worth noting that acclaims of his ability come from media influenced by that wealth, I suggest that by reading and commenting on his infantile ravings you are actually contributing to his pay packet, avoiding his ravings would soon see his wealthy backers would dump him.

  72. Ann

    I have no idea who you are talking about :). Does he do comedy

  73. DC

    Tried to write the comment below on a daily Telegraph Bolt Opinion piece today. Editors would not allow it. I did not swear or say anything un-factual, the first time I tried to post it, I started with the sentence: “Bolt you are a liar”, the modifiers would not accept it, so I dropped the first line, but still could not get the comment published (the link to Bolts spray about the ABC being biased about science is at the end);

    The fact that the ABC is tax payer funded is a strong reason why they should stick to reporting scientific facts. If the scientific reports makes the Coalition’s policies look bad it is because of their own choices and its not the job of journalists to sugar coat serious threats to appear more “balanced”. Your so called “FACTS” are not proven and you should refer to them as opinions. Global temperatures certainly did not stop rising 15 years ago they continued to rise. This decade was hotter than the last. You think you are telling climate scientists something they don’t already know when you say that we have had climate change in the past? Yes indeed we have and who do you think discovered that? The very same scientists, 97% of whom are now certain that the human activities are causing the current observed warming in our atmosphere (and oceans) which is now more than ten times faster than any rate of change over the past 1 million years (to put that in perspective, humans only learnt to farm 10,000 years ago). Even during the recoveries from ice ages, the rate of change was less than one tenth of the current rate of change. According to every credible science organisation on the planet, the probability of this unprecedented change being a coincidence that is unrelated to human consumption of fossil fuels is considered to be statistically insignificant.

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/abcs-preaching-not-based-on-fact/story-fnj45fva-1226745593355

  74. Ann

    I think the only way to get totally unbiased reporting is to go to one of the little local papers. May not have as big a coverage but might get people talking to people and that is how it starts.

  75. Pingback: Does Social Media Increase Our Ignorance in the Current Post Truth World? – The Indespensable Blog

Leave a Reply

Return to home page
Scroll Up
%d bloggers like this: