Andrew Bolt sees anyone who’d dare describe climate extremes such as those experienced in Victoria last weekend, just as predicted by global warming theory, as evidence in favour of that theory (not “proof”, Andy, “evidence” – there’s a difference) as an “opportunist” (and stupidly or dishonestly or both tries to counter their argument with evidence of a cold weather extreme in Maine*), and then spends an entire post today using the bushfire disaster to bash “greenies”.
It’s New Ltd’s big line on the fires. Turns out that arsonists had nothing to do with the most devastating ones, so it can’t run a Laura Norder campaign. Next target: Greens. Only problem, there’s not actually an evidence of the Greens opposing any policy that actually would’ve helped on Saturday. Andy has to cobble together policies which sound sort of like something a “greenie” might say, thereby define the person who’s said it as a “greenie”, and thus condemn the entire environmental movement for something it had nothing to do with. (And note: his quotes at the start of this piece don’t have working links.)
So if a council concerned with land values stops residents clearing trees, or if there are rules against untrained residents backburning in fire season in order to stop them STARTING bushfires, or if councils don’t have enough money to burn enough forest fuel to make a difference – well, we’ll blame all that on “greenies” and jump straight over the fact that the Greens and other environmental organisations (a) had nothing to do with it and (b) are in favour of forest management strategies designed to reduce bushfire.
(Hell, The Australian has given that ghoulish arsehole David Packham a free forum this week to claim even more – that “greenies” LOVE BUSHFIRES AND WANT YOUR FAMILY TO BURN DOWN AS PART OF THEIR “JIHAD”. And yet The Australian considers itself a serious paper. Bizarre.)
And of course it’s also open to question whether any previous forest management strategies would’ve prevented the disaster on the weekend, in those unprecedented conditions, anyway.
Andy’s smear is both contemptible and illogical – the connection he’s trying nastily to make doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny – and it is a sad indictment on the man that he can feign respect for the victims and horror at people he disagrees with mentioning the clear link between the disaster and what they’ve specifically been predicting is likely to happen, and then promptly go off and try to exaggerate the most feeble links imaginable to blame the deaths on his opponents.
High moral ground? You’re a guttersnipe, Andrew.
*He does understand that “global warming” refers to an increase in average global temperatures, and that part of what’s predicted as a result of that is localised extremes – including extreme cold weather – doesn’t he? If he hasn’t grasped that by this point, then he’s a fricking idiot. If he has, then his constant misrepresentations just reveal him to be a dishonest hack. One or the other.
UPDATE: Oh, that’s good news for News Ltd! The police do think some arsonists might have been responsible for the Churchill fire. Whether that pans out or not, it’s enough of an opening for a Laura Norder bash. If they can let the Greenie one go for a few moments. Anyway, back to the subject of the post, which is Bolt’s loathsome artic