Sloppy
I love it when Herald sun columnist Andrew Bolt does a story on global warming, because he is one crappy scientist.
Being a mindless anti-environmentalist, Bolta seems to think it is his duty to counter all the latest scientific warnings about climate change.
In Cold, hard facts defy the doomsayers Bolta starts out with some good old-fashioned lunacy using phrases such as
"Evacuate St Kilda now" and "Man-made global warming is a religion after all, and to question is heresy."
But the laughs really start when Bolt does question the scientist warnings.
Bolt starts his critique of the latest study by saying he won't be panicking.
Why? "Because it was only last October that Norwegian and Russian scientists led by Professor Ola Johannessen reported -- also in Science -- that their own satellite data showed the ice over Greenland was actually getting thicker each year by more than 5cm on average."
There is Bolt's proof man-made climate change doesn't exist. More ice in Greenland means no global warming right. Full stop end of discussion.
Well no, As Johannessen’s paper clearly indicates that the increased ice pack was due to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). The El Nino of the Atlantic.
Bolt’s next paragraph, "Naturally, such reassuring news got close to zero publicity. Global cooling, after all, is still tomorrow's scare" is just demonstrably wrong and an insult to the scientists he sites.
Global Cooling? Perhaps Bolt would like to point out where exactly Johannessen supports the concept of global cooling?
Bolta then turns to a "a global warming expert and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists" (professor Patrick Michaels) for back up.
Wow a a global warming expert and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists. He must be good.
Perhaps Bolt's readers should know that Michaels gets paid large sums of cold hard cash from the fossil fuel industry for his opinions.
Bolta conveniently forgot to mention that little fact.
Bolta is getting desperate at this stage and yet he just keeps plugging away.
"He (Michaels the Exxon scientist) also points out that the temperature swings around Greenland are a regular phenomenon known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation that has occurred for centuries: "There is no need to invoke global warming for any of this."
Um Andrew, Johannessen’s paper (did you even read it?) took into account this Oscillation factor.
No problems for Bolt as he plods on by stating, "And the bad news for fans of global drowning continues. Greenland is cooler than it was 50 years ago. Antarctica, home of 90 per cent of the world's ice, is getting colder, not warmer."
Yes but 50 years ago Greenland was going through an unusually hot period thanks to an extremely strong AMO event. Bolta also forgets to mention the rapid rise in temperatures in Greenland over the past decade.
In short Bolta misrepresents scientists, leaves out crucial information about who is paying who, doesn't even mention a major factor on Greenland's climate, and treats his readers with total disrepect.
How long will the Herald Sun tolerate this type of journalism?
About Me
- Broken Left Leg
- I like lattes, chardies, skiing, sailing, the perverted arts, living in the inner city, and laughing at poor people. Basically, I'm a lefty as defined by Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt.
Other Lefty Haters
Racist fuckers who should not be on Tim Blair's bogroll
Blog Archive
-
►
2009
(125)
-
►
October
(14)
- Righty group think.
- The new DLP
- Panic part 968
- A teacher?
- Drunk teenager robbing a store with a ham sandwich...
- The ABC of bias.
- The Liberal member for Kooyong.
- Race riots, just around the corner?
- Hungry Beast 2
- Feed the Hungry Beast.
- Peak families body.
- A pictorial of the future for the Liberal Party
- The Footy Sun
- You've got nothing Wah
-
►
October
(14)
Followers
18 comments:
Great post. Bolt's constant skewing of scientific evidence and seemingly deliberate attempts to misinform the public ought to earn him the mother of all bitchslaps on Media Watch. Why does it not?
there is definitely more to this story.
i have sent off a few emails and will update later. it may get very very very embarassing for the bolt. stay tuned
The big problem with any speculation about climate change is just how can any speculation , for or against be emprically measured ? we are talking about trends that span a far longer period than that for which human beings have been keeping detailed records .Most climate change data is postulated from very small samples of trapped gas from Antatrtic ice cores which has a large margin for error . But even without that how can we BE SURE that there is a causal relationsip between human activity and any percieved changes ? . If you are at say a football match and all of the fans are shouting that crickters are all homosexuals does that make it true ? There seems to be a fawning belief if enough "scientists" say something it MUST be true and Andrew Bolt makes a good point that if there is infact there is an increase in snow accumulating on the Greenland ice shelf that exceeds the percieved increase in melting of glaciers then all of the Doom saying about the iminent disapearence of Greenlands ice should be taken with a grain of salt.
Iain,
There is widespread consensus among scientist that climate change due to increased CO2 emmision does actually exist.
I have a major problem when Bolt grabs a tiny snippet from a scientist who actually believes climate change is a real problem, and then claims it is evidence there isn't a problem at all.
I also have a problem when Bolt quotes scientist who get paid by fossil fuel companies and doesn't inform the readers of this fact.
If you are going to though up evidence about Greenland's ice fields, you might actually want to read some scientific papers first rather than taking the word of dubious scientists or Andrew Bolt.
You can start here
Mate I have read the link you provided and frankly it does not make your case. Firstly it assumes a 1% \annual increase in CO2 a figure basically plucked from the air (pardon the pun) and the article claims pluses and minuses for the changes in the European climate, any way you misread the intention of my comment. I don’t claim that the climate of the planet is not subject to change but that the causal link between human activity is not proven, it is only assumed. how can any of the modelling possibly contain any thing but the most simplified assumptions minimised parameters and Not have such a large margin of error that the results are as valid as picking the numbers for the lottery at random . Sure there is a chance of being right but the odds are far greater that you will be wrong.
I know that you put great store by the fact that so many in the scientific grandstand are singing the same tune but how can we be sure that they are not all just caught up a one huge Mexican wave?
And what about the effects on the plants that sustain us all on this planet if the co2 does increase? Why should we assume that a warmer climate means agriculture will be in trouble?
The piece you quoted to me suggests that there may well be benefits for plants with a warmer climate.
So what can we do about it anyway? You are clearly worried about this issue and yet you travel in aeroplanes and probably have a car and all mod cons (air-conditioning ?)
The thing is that human beings are successful as a species because we are versatile creatures we(as a species) have managed to exploit every type of environment on the planet .and thrive in most of them and human beings will find a way to thrive ,even in a warmer future.
Iain, I wasn't making a case other than highlighting that Bolt uses dubious evidence to suggest global warming isn't a worry.
You obviously don't think global warming is a major problem and may in fact be benificial.
Please don't be offended if I side with the vast majority of skilled scientists, rather than you, Bolt and a "scientist" who get paid large sums of money from vested interests.
I think you will find that Andrew bolt does not deny that global warming may be hapenning , nor do I how ever I wonder about the vested intrests of those who are saying "the sky is falling " as much as those who say it is not .
I am not offended by your comments at all . At least you are willing to listen. I am old enough to remember the many voices in the 1970's who were predicting a new ice age ! Either way all we can do is be as energy efficent as we can and hope for the best :o)and avoid travelling in airplanes ;o)
Iain, most climate history predating current recording comes from a variety of sources, not just ice cores but geological sources such as Oxygen-18 concentrations in carbonate sands. There is a complete geological record of the last 5 ice-ages and interglacial periods along the limestone coast north of Robe in South Australia.
Dropstones in sedimentary layers evidence glacial activity and the osscilate as you go down the record, in synch with the gaps in the Oxygen-18 indicators.
Uplift of coastlines (Papua New Guniea) show the histories of sea level change, as do the inconformities in the carbonate layers of pacific atolls. They all correlate with each other.
And that's just the sea level change aspect of climatology.
I'm curious Iain, where did you get this idea that most records of climate change come from ice core samples?
Brokenleg,
You beat me to it! I'll probably write my critique tomorrow (I'll give you credit where we overlap) and give it to Mr Lefty (I don't want any more Bolt material on my blog for a while).
I have a few points to make that you haven't.
On the issue of media watch, I wouldn't hold your breath. I've sent them detailed information on misrepresentation of science before and they haven't been interested.
Maybe they will be able to this year, but let's face it, they don't have a science focus or an abundance of science resources. It may be that they don't want to risk making the same mistakes as those they point the finger at.
I guess it's understandable, but I don't like it.
Bruce
I don't deny any of the science you may care to quote but there is a big difference between the data that may be gleaned from the sources that you quote and any infertences and assumptions that are made from that data , there in lies the bones of contention . My refence to ice cores was mearely an example .
I would say that uplift of coastlines has more to do with contenental drift that changes in Sea level .
I look forward to your piece Bruce assuming my comments will be allowed of course.
Iain, Andrew Bolt has definitely denied any connection between human activity and global warming. He actually made this clear on his forum on various occasions.
Bolt has continuously "cherry picked" information about global warming. He e-mailed me an anti-global warming blog site which he uses for most of his articles on global warming (sorry can't remember it). This is not proper research for a person with his media reach.
My feeling is that Bolt doesn’t really believe a lot of what he writes on this topic. He is a stirrer and is playing a part. He must be controversial to get readers. He is a disgrace because of the misinformation he is peddling. A lot of people want to believe him. He gets them excited.
Many US states and major companies are moving towards policies and practices involving the reduction of green house gas emissions. They are satisfied with the overwhelming scientific information that human activity is contributing to much of the planets warming. In spite of the fact that the US government has refused to sign onto Kyoto.
Iain, please click onto the following website (Environmental Defence) and find out more of what is going on in the US regarding green house gas emmisions. Are you aware of the McCain-Lieberman Act?
http://www.undoit.org/home.cfm
It details some excellent studies that have done on global warming.
Bolt is sucking a lot of people in. He is not really fair dinkum.
Johnny
thanks for the link but it hardly seems to be an objective site to me.
Look mate your passion shines through but why all this support for Kyoto ? even if its targets were met it would be like pissing into the wind with out obligations on the "developing Countries " you cant think it is anything more than window dressing.
The question you shuld consider is to what extent are the events sighted as "evidence " of global warming are part of the natural variability of the climate and given the very long time frames involved and the very short time fame for which we have detailed data . any Trends can only be infered from at best secondary sources at best but more generaly it is deduced from geological artifacts and the margin of error is enough to make a lot of the assumptions suspect .
take this for example from the site you quote
Over the past century, sea levels have risen by about 4 to 8 inches as a result of global warming. In the Mississippi Delta the total relative sea-level rise over the same period is estimated at about 3 feet. Thus much of the rise in sea-level in this region can be attributed to subsidence (see above). However, sea-level rise from global warming could be as much as 1 foot by 2050 and could approach 3 feet by the end of the century. In other words, sea-level rise from global warming could bring New-Orleans-like conditions to coastal cities everywhere. The implications for all coastal communities subject to hurricane landfall, not just New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, are stark.
just where does he substantiate this claim for sea level rise ?
I just refuse to give in to the sky is falling stuff (or the oceans are rising either other parts of the world show NO measured rise in sea levels .
Iain
I don't deny any of the science you may care to quote but there is a big difference between the data that may be gleaned from the sources that you quote and any infertences and assumptions that are made from that data , there in lies the bones of contention . My refence to ice cores was mearely an example .
Your exact words were "Most climate change data is postulated from very small samples of trapped gas from Antatrtic ice cores which has a large margin for error". I was perhaps being pedantic in making the point that most evidence is not from ice core samples.
I would say that uplift of coastlines has more to do with contenental drift that changes in Sea level .
The fact of the uplift of coastlines isn't the crux of my argument (nor is it always related to continental drift), the gradually uplifted coastlines of Papua act as a natural "recording machine" of sea level - evidenced by uplifted fossilised coral reefs. From these you can infer historic sea level (and oceanic temperature from carbon-18 concentration in the fossils.)
I look forward to your piece Bruce assuming my comments will be allowed of course.
Well I don't have a say in the comments policy at Boltwatch, so I can't comment. Also, I wouldn't expect me to advicate on your (or any commenters) behalf. Not my responsibility.
Bruce I don't expect that you would advocate on my behalf to Jeremy so sadly your piece will not get anything more than glad handing and backslapping from the fellow travellers at Boltwatch.so why not cross post it at your own blog ?
Iain, as if you are the only voice of dissent at Boltwatch... I won't cross-post because a) I don't want to have any "Bolt pieces" on my blog and b) I don't do cross-posting (i.e. spamming).
oh... that should say "any more"
Bruce, you have some very strange definitions of "spamming" mate How can publishing your own work on your own web page poassibly be spamming? I look forward to the piece any way .
And you do know that if you make an error in a comment you can delete and repost it after making corrections ?
Show me the comments at boltwatch that are anything more than a chorous of "yeh Lefty !" these days , they seem very thin on the ground to me .
Well Bruce I have written a response to your Boltwatch piece at http://buildingeightofnine.blogspot.com/ as Jeremy Sear (Mr Lefty) does not want me to play at his sand pit and you don't want to cross post at your own blog
I thought you would do better than that though.
Post a Comment