Remove this Banner Ad

Andrew Bolt

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

S

StrappingTape

Norm Smith Medallist
Veteran
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Posts
6,486
Reaction score
8,002
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Q and A is about skewing the libs and backing the government no matter what and whenever you can telling everyone how bad climate change will make everything. They might put 2 fat conservatives on to make it look like there's 4 of them for a balanced perspective.

If you want to test how 50/50 their audience really is, go in there and ask a question citing Andrew Bolt lol
 
StrappingTape said:
If you want to test how 50/50 their audience really is, go in there and ask a question citing Andrew Bolt lol
Click to expand...

Any audience that wouldn't instantly ridicule and dismiss anything Andrew Bolt has ever said isn't neutral.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Bolt....what a clown.

He is laughed at by the left, the right and even the extreme right.

Like Bolt, I am not happy with the greens agenda or the performance of Gillard. Nevertheless, his approach of bagging the government is not palatable to most.
 
El_Scorcho said:
Here's a small example of the rich tapestry if Andrew Bolt's lying and misleading horseshit

http://grogsgamut.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/andrew-bolt-trends-towards-dodgy-graphs.html?m=1
Click to expand...

Sigh, so he ****ed up using a graphing program for his trend lines, the point of his post was factually correct that there's been no warming for 16 years. Turns out Dr Karl was wrong and deleted his Twitter post after being corrected on Twitter. Not that it's going to stop some of you blindly hating someone
 
Burningleviathan said:
Those graphs show the temp rising by 0.16 degrees per decade over that period. It's at the end of it.
Click to expand...

That's not the point of his post. That's why the guys blog post means sweet **** all, Bolts displaying that there's now been a 16 year flat trend of no statistical warming, he's not arguing that warming hasn't occurred in previous times but the significance and his point is the time span of the trend due to that same time span being significantly acceptable when it warms as evidence. It's also a massive divergence that none of the models predicted, if it continues flat for another 4 years then you have 2 decades of flat etc.. anyway way off topic but yeah I wouldn't go quoting that dude in Canberra's blog incase you run into someone who knows their shit.
 
The entire ABC is incredibly biased to the left, let alone Q & A

Luckily the douchebags in the audience are not an accurate representation of the wider Australian public
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Jesus Christ I didn't realise there were people that actually followed and agreed with Bolt.

He is that ridiculous he could be a leftist plant designed to make moderate right wing people reel back in horror and maybe consider more progressive social policy.

StrappingTape said:
That's not the point of his post. That's why the guys blog post means sweet **** all, Bolts displaying that there's now been a 16 year flat trend of no statistical warming, he's not arguing that warming hasn't occurred in previous times but the significance and his point is the time span of the trend due to that same time span being significantly acceptable when it warms as evidence. It's also a massive divergence that none of the models predicted, if it continues flat for another 4 years then you have 2 decades of flat etc.. anyway way off topic but yeah I wouldn't go quoting that dude in Canberra's blog incase you run into someone who knows their shit.
Click to expand...

Um, the entire point of Bolt's article it to try to trick people into believing misrepresented science so he can push his climate change skepticism agenda. His intention is to make people who read his article believe that climate change isn't an issue despite almost unanimous scientific opinion.

Bolt has a long and storied history of misrepresenting facts and statistics to back up his insane right wing caricature arguments.
 
Seriously how is it possible to be that dense? If you don't understand the argument why argue it. Bolts correct on bis post if you do not understand why then you shouldnt be bagging him. I'm sure you still believe in 97% of scientists agree and the hockey stick graph yeah?
 
Well if you're a climate change skeptic i'm not sure why i'm bothering but here goes.

I'm bagging him because he's picking and choosing what he reveals and what he doesn't to fit his agenda. The blog post shows pretty clearly that Bolt's information takes a small snippet of data from one specific data set that supports his argument and ignores anything that doesn't (which btw is basically all the other data on the matter).

Go to the woodfortrees.org and plot the graphs yourself. Between 1996 and 2012, all but one of the data sets they offer are trending upwards in that timeframe. How exactly is that "No warming in 16 years"?

Bolt has attempted to deliberately mislead people by using one set of data (well, one trendline) and ignoring 16 other data sets.
 
power09 said:
So you support government propaganda?
Click to expand...

a) The government isn't much of a left government at all really.

b) You'll find that these sorts of shows have always been skewed left regardless of what government is in power because they tend to attract educated, intelligent people.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

For ****s sake.

Global warming over a similar time frame of 15 years was taken as statistically significant. We now have a flat trend for on about 16 years of no warming which suddenly isn't statistically significant because it doesn't agree with the warming theory nor the modeled predictions. Bolts argument about the 16 years of no warming is cherry picking for this exact reason, how much clearer can it be made? There's many other people out there talking about exactly the same thing, you need to move past who the messenger was and to make it even worse, Dr Karl was wrong, he's deleted all of his tweets.
 
El_Scorcho said:
a) The government isn't much of a left government at all really.

b) You'll find that these sorts of shows have always been skewed left regardless of what government is in power because they tend to attract educated, intelligent people.
Click to expand...

A) You're taking the piss right or you are 12

B) Intelligent people would be able to understand Andrew Bolts blog post
 
El_Scorcho said:
Jesus Christ I didn't realise there were people that actually followed and agreed with Bolt.
Click to expand...

That makes you uninformed. Not a good position to start from if you choose to push an opinion.

El_Scorcho said:
He is that ridiculous he could be a leftist plant designed to make moderate right wing people reel back in horror and maybe consider more progressive social policy.
Click to expand...

Or he could be someone you disagree with and argue against his beliefs. You know. Play the ball rather than the man.

El_Scorcho said:
Um, the entire point of Bolt's article it to try to trick people into believing misrepresented science so he can push his climate change skepticism agenda. His intention is to make people who read his article believe that climate change isn't an issue despite almost unanimous scientific opinion.
Click to expand...

I don't believe he is trying to trick people. He presents an argument that he, and many others, genuinely believe. It is not a bad thing to present alternative arguments for consideration. If scientific debate was decided on majority opinion then we would still believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Science is not consensus. The majority didn't discover electricity. If we don't question what is accepted then we will never progress.

El_Scorcho said:
Bolt has a long and storied history of misrepresenting facts and statistics to back up his insane right wing caricature arguments.
Click to expand...

And so do many on the other side of the debate. cough.. hockey stick...hide the decline.. cough..
 
StrappingTape said:
For ****s sake.

Global warming over a similar time frame of 15 years was taken as statistically significant. We now have a flat trend for on about 16 years of no warming which suddenly isn't statistically significant because it doesn't agree with the warming theory nor the modeled predictions. Bolts argument about the 16 years of no warming is cherry picking for this exact reason, how much clearer can it be made? There's many other people out there talking about exactly the same thing, you need to move past who the messenger was and to make it even worse, Dr Karl was wrong, he's deleted all of his tweets.
Click to expand...

Do we have a flat trend though?

Let's have a look.

If we go back another 16 years and compare 1980-1995 with 1996-2012, it's warmed at a more rapid rate in the last 16 years than in the previous 16 years according to the first few data sets I ran.

trend

trend



So he's most certainly cherry picking data to serve his position. Again, one (1) of seventeen (17) graphs available on the woodfortrees.org website shows a flat or downward trend over the past 16 years. It might not match the modelling but warming is still occuring according to this data.
 
StrappingTape said:
A) You're taking the piss right or you are 12

B) Intelligent people would be able to understand Andrew Bolts blog post
Click to expand...

a) The two major parties are both centre-right, if the government can even be assigned a position given how reactionary they have to be on every single issue.

b) Intelligent people did and proved that he was using incorrect data which made his entire article meaningless and incorrect. Bolt is relying on stupid people to read what he says and believe him.
 
Are u missing the point on purpose? You realise the rest of the world is full of people saying the same as bolt on this, he didn't make it up the other day. Could you imagine the reaction if bolt had made the same mistake as Dr karl, judging by the reaction he got from a bunch of people who don't even understand his argument it would be a witch hunt.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom