Andrew Dolt - game over

[OldLion]

Terrific piece from Crikey to hoist Dolt on his own whatever - couldn't happen to a nicer sneering self promoter.


"..In his column (published in the Herald Sun and the Brisbane Sunday Mail in September), Bolt quoted the findings of Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences at the University of California, San Diego:

Gore says ice cores from Antarctica, that go back 650,000 years, show the world got warmer each time there was more carbon dioxide in the air. In fact, as the University of California's Professor Jeff Severinghaus and others note, at least three studies of ice cores show the earth first warmed and only then came more carbon dioxide, many hundreds of years later. So does extra carbon dioxide cause a warming world, or vice versa?

​

Severinghaus told Crikey that he doesn’t make a habit of Googling his own research, but Bolt appeared on his radar when a librarian in Brisbane wrote to him asking if “I’d really meant what Bolt said I meant”.

He didn’t. “Many, many other studies have found that carbon dioxide causes the earth to warm. This is not controversial, and to continue to deny it is akin to denying that cigarette smoking causes cancer,” Severinghaus told Crikey. “The evidence for a human-caused warming of the globe is overwhelming. The scientific debate is over, and what we are seeing now is an attempt to mislead the public.”

 

[medusala]

. “The evidence for a human-caused warming of the globe is overwhelming. The scientific debate is over, and what we are seeing now is an attempt to mislead the public.” [/I]

The scientific debate isnt over.

 

[unstable punt]

The scientific debate isnt over.

only because conservative apologists like yourself and bolt will continue to argue the point for reasons that can only be to tow the right-wing party line

 

[medusala]

only because conservative apologists like yourself and bolt will continue to argue the point for reasons that can only be to tow the right-wing party line

I respectfully disagree.

There is widespread disagreement about:

the extent of global warming

and

the reasons for global warming.

To say that all scientists are in agreement on both is patently absurd. Nothing to do with left/right politics. To think that there arent people on the left pushing their own barrow on this is also a manifest display of misology.

 

[RogerC]

I respectfully disagree.

There is widespread disagreement about:

the extent of global warming

and

the reasons for global warming.

To say that all scientists are in agreement on both is patently absurd. Nothing to do with left/right politics. To think that there arent people on the left pushing their own barrow on this is also a manifest display of misology.

Replace the words "global warming" with "cancer caused by cigarettes" and you have the argument for doing nothing about cigarettes. That was standard line for many years.

What would you suggest would be the most prudent approach from here, Medusala? There's obviously a massive economic imperative to ignore any research that indicates global warming. The economic imperative to believe the research is not as massive - I guess we're talking about stoking a few egos and selling books, which isn't quite on the scale of large industry.

I would argue that the prudent approach is to go the 'what-if' angle. The consequences of global warming, if the research is to be believed, are catastrophic. To go the whole hog and drastically reduce CO2 emissions would be about as disastrous economically, I'd imagine. There needs to be some compromise.

After all, the ideology of the 'War on Terror' is constructed on a series of what-ifs and a preventive strategy to keep those what-ifs from becoming realities. Why can't our approach to the environment follow the same ideology?

 

[just maybe]

I respectfully disagree.

There is widespread disagreement about:

the extent of global warming

and

the reasons for global warming.

To say that all scientists are in agreement on both is patently absurd. Nothing to do with left/right politics. To think that there arent people on the left pushing their own barrow on this is also a manifest display of misology.

Laughable. Whenever medusala is getting trounced he resorts to accusing the oppositon of misology.

Hate to break it to you, meddie-meds, but at this point in time in the global warming debate, your steadfast opposition to global warming means the misologist is...you.

 

[CoggaRules]

The scientific debate isnt over.

man, the thing that you dont understand is that it isnt a debate, they are facts.
You have scientists the world over producing study after study with facts, saying the sh-it is hitting the fan, and you have govt appointed scientists, suggesting that there isnt sufficient eveidence to prove they are facts.
Now do some research about how the Bush admin has bent over backwards to keep this facade of a "debate" going on, when its clear he is pandering to the big corporates wants.

I would suggest the overwhelming majority of experts who are scientists are comepltely agreed on the problem. So how you can suggest it is a "debate" is complelty ridiculous.

GO an ask the people in the north of Alaska if there is a any debate needed?
There the first cabs off the rank as refugees from global warming.

 

[DaveW]

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/09/andrew_bolt_gets_a_perfect_sco.php

 

[camsmith]

The debate is over?

What debate? There hasn't even BEEN one. That is the whole point!

 

[pmad87]

So does extra carbon dioxide cause a warming world, or vice versa?

Vice versa would mean that a warming world causes extra carbon dioxide. Not sure what Andy means by the word "extra" but if the warming world is natural then this carbon dioxide isn't "extra" at all.

And if natural warming is the only cause of this carbon dioxide, what happens to the carbon dioxide coming out of car exhaust and factory chimneys?

I would suggest Andy that the science behind global warming goes a little bit deeper than the mere coincidence that higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and higher temperatures occur at the same time.

I realise the hypocrisy of what I'm about to say but STOP LISTENING TO WHAT ANDREW BOLT SAYS! Whether you criticise or agree with him, he is not intelligent enough to deserve having a respected opinion.

 

[Fitzroy1]

The debate is over?

What debate? There hasn't even BEEN one. That is the whole point!

It's obviously getting too hot on Earth to have a debate - let's just lie back and enjoy the global warming.

 

[chiangmaipie]

Laughable. Whenever medusala is getting trounced he resorts to accusing the oppositon of misology.

Hate to break it to you, meddie-meds, but at this point in time in the global warming debate, your steadfast opposition to global warming means the misologist is...you.

Well put! the debate IS over!

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Replace the words "global warming" with "cancer caused by cigarettes" and you have the argument for doing nothing about cigarettes. That was standard line for many years.

What would you suggest would be the most prudent approach from here, Medusala? There's obviously a massive economic imperative to ignore any research that indicates global warming. The economic imperative to believe the research is not as massive - I guess we're talking about stoking a few egos and selling books, which isn't quite on the scale of large industry.

I would argue that the prudent approach is to go the 'what-if' angle. The consequences of global warming, if the research is to be believed, are catastrophic. To go the whole hog and drastically reduce CO2 emissions would be about as disastrous economically, I'd imagine. There needs to be some compromise.

After all, the ideology of the 'War on Terror' is constructed on a series of what-ifs and a preventive strategy to keep those what-ifs from becoming realities. Why can't our approach to the environment follow the same ideology?

As usual, great post Rog.

Even if there is some research to refute the existence of CO2-fired global warming, there is such a mountain of evidence indicating that it at least probably does exist.

Therefore, it is imperative that a worst-case scenario is considered, and policies,actions put in place to accommodate for its eventualities.

We don't wait for the flood to make the sandbags or wait for the bushfire to do a firebreak (well, we shouldn't!), even though the disasters themselves may not materialise. So why would we not cater for the disasters that accompany global warming?

Even better, try to prevent them?

There is a key difference present, too. Apart from the odd publishing royalty associated with journals and books, those advocating the reduction of CO2 have significantly less to gain than those who advocate open-slather CO2 emission if they happen to get their way.

 

[Chief]

After all, the ideology of the 'War on Terror' is constructed on a series of what-ifs and a preventive strategy to keep those what-ifs from becoming realities. Why can't our approach to the environment follow the same ideology?

There's no money in it.

 

[moistie]

The debate is over?

What debate? There hasn't even BEEN one. That is the whole point!

No, it's just that you've ignored it.

So world leaders didn't gather in Kyoto in 1997 to discuss it?

I'm also amazed they're up to the 18th International Global Warming Conference.

 

[RogerC]

There's no money in it.

Yup. That's the common denominator in pretty much everything, and the only way to explain any national and international policy with any consistency. Something to think about with reference to a lot of other topics.

 

[chooke]

Laughable. Whenever medusala is getting trounced he resorts to accusing the oppositon of misology.

Or he selctively uses statistics that support his cause while ignoring those that refute his prejudices.

 

[camsmith]

No, it's just that you've ignored it.

So world leaders didn't gather in Kyoto in 1997 to discuss it?

I'm also amazed they're up to the 18th International Global Warming Conference.

Thats funny because scientists seem to think there hasn't been a real debate yet.

Open Kyoto to debate

An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

Dear Prime Minister:

As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

[..]

We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.

We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.

(Signed, names of 60 scientists)

 

[MSR273]

Or he selctively uses statistics that support his cause while ignoring those that refute his prejudices.

Its just as well that no-one else does this sort of trickery

 

[Sir_Adrian84]

Thats funny because scientists seem to think there hasn't been a real debate yet.

Open Kyoto to debate

An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

Dear Prime Minister:

As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

[..]

We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.

We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.

(Signed, names of 60 scientists)

so,

I hope there is another Kyoto Protocol, even stricter than the last one (maybe having emisions to 1900 levels). The best way to save the world is to slowly begin winding back industrialisation. By then the world will be slightly cleaner, and they can we can all live in peace.

 

[Moo]

There's no money in it.

There is if you have dropped your life savings into the Acme Life Boat and Inflatable Platform Company.

 

[CoggaRules]

The debate is over?

What debate? There hasn't even BEEN one. That is the whole point!

no you miss the point why there hasnt been a debate cam.
You need to have valid points, backed up with statistics, on both sides of a debate, to be able to debate. One side has facts, figures and a huge majority of scientists suggesting we have a real, present and increasingly dangerous problem, and on the other you have govt appointed scientists saying that all thier facts and figures are not valid, because they say its nature at work.
So you can see which side of the debate isnt debating dont you?

 

[camsmith]

no you miss the point why there hasnt been a debate cam.
You need to have valid points, backed up with statistics, on both sides of a debate, to be able to debate. One side has facts, figures and a huge majority of scientists suggesting we have a real, present and increasingly dangerous problem, and on the other you have govt appointed scientists saying that all thier facts and figures are not valid, because they say its nature at work.
So you can see which side of the debate isnt debating dont you?

Your idea of a debate is flawed. So to is your idea of government funded scientists - as they seem to be the ones who are to scared to speak up against the GW theory for fear they will lose their funding.

One side needs to use exaggerated computer models and junk science while the other simply needs to show the natural trends that have occurred throughout recent history, including times where humans have emitted a huge amount of CO2's into the atmosphere.

There has been no serious debate. Scientists who are after the truth want it desperately yet governments around the world want to be seen as friendly to the environment therefore give real research into 'global warming' the flick.

You also wrongly accuse scientists of acknowledging we have a " real, present and increasingly dangerous problem" when in reality many scientists who do believe in the global warming theory don't see it as a problem that must be fixed straight away.

 

[camsmith]

so,

I hope there is another Kyoto Protocol, even stricter than the last one (maybe having emisions to 1900 levels). The best way to save the world is to slowly begin winding back industrialisation. By then the world will be slightly cleaner, and they can we can all live in peace.

And then we all wake up.

 

[medusala]

Laughable. Whenever medusala is getting trounced he resorts to accusing the oppositon of misology.

Hate to break it to you, meddie-meds, but at this point in time in the global warming debate, your steadfast opposition to global warming means the misologist is...you.

My steadfast opposition to what? The earth is getting warmer. The debate is over the extent and the causes.

Why deny such a debate exists when it clearly does?