Guest post by Tobias Ziegler
Cross posted at Not A Hedgehog
Bolt makes use of the current rising body count in Georgia’s South Ossetia region to consider, “How the next president would handle a war.” On the face of it, his proposal is a reasonable one:
How would the next president of the US react in a crisis – say, a war unexpectedly unleashed by a superpower? Barack Obama and John McCain have been set a test with Russia’s attack on Georgia
Fortunately, a savvy blogger such as Bolt can save himself the effort involved in actually analysing what the respective candidates said by simply linking to and quoting from his fellow Rightards. And that is exactly what Andy does, drawing firstly on a comparison by Roger Kimball that concludes:
To recap: John McCain forthrightly condemns Russia’s behavior and demands that Russia withdraw unconditionally. Obama wants to turn the mess over to the UN.
Andrew has to save his brainpower for the gymnastic contortions involved in maintaining an worldview in which all major problems (such as the moral decay of modern society) and non-problems (such as global warming) can be accounted for by a single entity. But let’s exert the mental energy that Andrew was unwilling to expend – let’s conduct our own analysis of the statements made by McCain and Obama.
These quotations are taken from the statements made by the Presidential candidates, as reproduced on their respective campaign web sites. We’ll just take the parts of what each candidate said that weren’t mentioned in the source Bolt took his content from.
Over the last two days, Russia has escalated the crisis in Georgia through it’s [sic] clear and continued violation of Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. On Friday, August 8, Russian military forces invaded Georgia. I condemn Russia’s aggressive actions and reiterate my call for an immediate ceasefire. Russia must stop its bombing campaign, cease flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia … Russia also must end its cyber war against Georgian government websites. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected.
The U.S. should immediately convene an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to call on Russia to reverse course. The US should immediately work with the EU and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course it has chosen. We should immediately call a meeting of the North Atlantic Council to assess Georgia’s security and review measures NATO can take to contribute to stabilizing this very dangerous situation. Finally, the international community needs to establish a truly independent and neutral peacekeeping force in South Ossetia.
To recap: Barack Obama forthrightly condemns Russia’s behavior and demands that Russia withdraw unconditionally. McCain wants to turn the mess over to – well, not just the UN, but pretty much every multilateral body of which the US is a member.
The lesson in this is simple – Bolt, or anyone else, can make a statement on a complex issue such as foreign policy in relation to a warzone look however they like, by SNIPping the parts they don’t want to acknowledge. Bolt can save himself having to even do that by quoting his fellow travellers instead. But such truncations are inevitably going to be flawed. Whether you agree or disagree with what Bolt says, it is worth taking the time to read the whole of the source he is criticising.
P.S.: Just out of interest, let’s see what the actual President had to say, if we chop out most of the content of his statement in a Bolt-like manner:
The United States is working with our European partners to launch international mediation, and with the parties to restart their dialogue.
Pansy.
UPDATE: Bolt has propagated the same rubbish in his Hun column today. My comment on his column:
Absolute rubbish, Andrew – you are either being disingenuous or you haven’t taken the trouble to actually read the statements released by the two candidates.
Given that most commentators and foreign policy analysts are discussing whether McCain has been too bellicose, and that McCain seems to have relied on Wikipedia for his foreign policy advice about Georgia, it seems that what you are looking for in a US President is someone who will act without thinking or knowing. Isn’t eight years of that enough?
219 Comments
13 August, 2008 at 11:09 am
Brilliant post. One could easily argue that American posturing in Northern Europe is responsible for Russian paranoia — a complexity far beyond Bolt’s capabilities.
13 August, 2008 at 11:14 am
Tobias, this is a beautiful dissection of Bolt’s bullshit. Well done.
13 August, 2008 at 11:19 am
Lee, I should recommend this analysis by Pepe.
13 August, 2008 at 11:27 am
Tobias well done for using the primary sources to criticise Mr Bolt for seeking to spin a tragedy to suit his agenda.
Many of Mr Bolt’s posts are simply references to secondary materials that he agrees with, without any reference to the underlying facts or any contrary interpretation of the underlying facts. It is lazy – imagine if a newspaper simply was referrences to other articles with pithy comments attached – but it does enable him to make 10 or so posts a day and get the precious monthly hits up.
A few months ago Mr Bolt asked for suggestion about the blog and some, including rusted on fans such as Alan of Sydney, said there should be less posts a day to improve quality of posts and replies. There was no public response to the suggestion, and the post rate continues.
I suppose more posts means more hits, and more hits means Mr Bolt look more influential. Paradoxically, despite all his hysterical posts, for example, on what the Coalition’s policy should be on climate change he cannot even influence Coalition members to support his views. Squeaky wheel syndrome.
13 August, 2008 at 11:29 am
more smoke, more mirrors, more distortions, and curiously no link for readers – giveaway? is it just me or has bolt become more brazen and frequent with his misrepresentations of late? surely the only people lapping his shit up are the rusted on boltites in full-on worship mode.
p.s. just noticed this on one of the comments:
“No offence Andrew, but since I left Australia your sense of personal celebrity has apparently overtaken your sense of moral judgement.”
lol!!
13 August, 2008 at 11:39 am
i wonder whether a letter to the editor of the herald sun outlining all this would ever see the light of day? surely bolt’s outright deception not just on this but on agw graphs, recasting history etc breaches some sort of standard. yes i know the Hun has no standards but even so……
13 August, 2008 at 11:51 am
Re Gert’s points, I just read the comments re Georgia-Russia and it seems that Bolt’s poorly-researched pieces are getting a poor reception. A small sample, I know, but time will tell.
13 August, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Don’t forget the SNIPPING that will occur when a few rare posters attempt to show up Bolt’s idiotic position and dishonesty, but are prevented from really doing so by the moderator minions protecting their cowardly leader.
Beautifully put Tobias. Whether you agree with a lot of Bolt’s politics or not, his absurdly juvenile world view that almost everything and everyone “conservative”, is pure, good, loyal, genuine, honest, hard-working etc, and everything too the left of that is the opposite, not only requires continual mental gymnastic contortions of the adult brain, but also the pathetic logic, contradiction, blurring of the boundaries, goal post shifting, inconsistency, dishonesty, distortion and cherry-picking, easily observed in his “work”, a subservient non-thinking cheer-squad, and ultimately political allies as moderators, to protect Bolt when he is really shown up as an idiot.
His anti-journalism is probably most clearly displayed when he attempt too super-impose his juvenile world-view onto issue involving international politics, which are almost invariably, extremely complicated and multifaceted.
He reminds me of myself as an eight-year old playing with my army men.
13 August, 2008 at 5:15 pm
It’s a measure of how thoroughly deceptive his column was that even the winged monkeys aren’t coming out in numbers. Most have stayed away from a fight seemingly even they know they can’t win.
13 August, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Bolta did look cute in his flak-jacket in the green zone in Iraq—I suggest a trip to down-town Bagdad now, and tell us in his own words the state of affairs there now—and without US sponsorship, may I add,maybe take his mate Alan Wilkes along.
13 August, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Agreed, Keri – although Bolt made sure he gave them a “Victory! in Iraq” thread today as well so they could keep themselves occupied laughing at those (imaginary) lefties who want to see Americans die.
13 August, 2008 at 10:20 pm
the absolute bile and deception all thrown in with childish turns of phrase from bolt always reminds me of the green left weekly.
he’s not conservative he’s just a mirror image of the extreme left of a western democracy.
yes andrew you are what you hate most.
13 August, 2008 at 10:21 pm
great piece tobias that’s 2 now where you’ve bothered to show the deception in his writing. keep it up.
14 August, 2008 at 1:42 am
Oh, those lefties. Of course! Well, in that case, it’s perfectly okay for Bolta to completely mis-represent the truth!
How silly of me!
14 August, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Bolt…… so boring lately.
15 August, 2008 at 2:25 am
Why do lefties always smell like mung beans?
15 August, 2008 at 6:48 am
Bolt in todays HUN is basicly calling most stupid. He is really upset, he can’t understand Kevvie is still popular.
15 August, 2008 at 8:14 am
Hi,
Obama said this: “Diplomats at the highest levels from the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations must become directly involved in mediating this military conflict and beginning a process to resolve the political disputes over the territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. A genuinely neutral mediator – not the Russian government – must begin a process of negotiations immediately.”
And he said this too: “The current escalation of military conflict resulted in part from the lack of a neutral and effective peacekeeping force operating under an appropriate UN mandate”
So my question is, didn’t they kinda say the same things?
Thanks, M.
15 August, 2008 at 11:06 am
“Geoff
15 August, 2008 at 6:48 am
Bolt in todays HUN is basicly calling most stupid. He is really upset, he can’t understand Kevvie is still popular.”
Some people are just incapable of ever admitting being wrong, or that they have faults or faliures. They must be the centre of attention at all times, have an overblown ego and lack of empathy.
Check out this link on narcissistic personality disorder. http://www.communities.ninemsn.com/NARCISSISTICPERSONALITYDISORDER/whatisanarcissist.msnw
Fucking uncanny…its like it was written about the man.
15 August, 2008 at 1:47 pm
this is off topic but i just wanted to say that SO FAR bolt has done a pretty reasonble job in reporting the olympics and the unbeleivable stuff that’s happening with chinese authorities & IOC. so far he hasn’t sunk into his normal ‘those on the left’ or anti rudd rants . i’ve been impressed.
17 August, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Andy yearns for those good ol’ Cold War, Comicbook days when we knew who the good guys were and who were the filthy, stinking Commies!
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/now_russia_threatens_poland_with_nuclear_attack/
The Necons just have to have their demon, don’t they? How else can they appear good if they don’t have the Dark Side to provide a contrast?
17 August, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I think we’re all guilty of oversimplifying things at times. Wouldn’t you agree, Dean L?
17 August, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Did a John Le Carré character ever carry out a ‘Shock and Awe’ campaign and for that matter Bolts’ Bat/Bushman?
17 August, 2008 at 8:24 pm
“The Necons just have to have their demon, don’t they? How else can they appear good if they don’t have the Dark Side to provide a contrast?”
Isn’t one of the main reasons of this very site to jab at your own demons, specifically two conservative columnists? It’s not opposition to “appear good,” rather they oppose things because they disagree with them. You do the same thing. We all do.
17 August, 2008 at 8:58 pm
I think we’re all guilty of oversimplifying things at times. Wouldn’t you agree, Dean L?
Er…yes.
Isn’t one of the main reasons of this very site to jab at your own demons, specifically two conservative columnists? It’s not opposition to “appear good,” rather they oppose things because they disagree with them. You do the same thing. We all do.
Bolt a demon? He’s certainly somewhat comicbook and, despite what his followers seem to believe, not very influential or important. As I’ve said before – he has used the dog-whistling Hanson Technique to perfection. He raises a degree of debate, certainly; but the debate is never really situated where he is conducting it – for example, Bolt contends that AGW is a non-issue – the real debate is focussed on what, when and how something will be done.
Blair is completely irrelevant.
What is it Bolt is opposing?
The sad thing about the Russian military excursion is that the USA’s unilateral and aggressive action against Iraq, which Bolt supported so wholeheartedly, has provided Russia with just the cover it requires for this and future acts of aggression. The days of the USA’s hegemony are passing as we watch.
17 August, 2008 at 9:27 pm
my issue with bolt’s post is he overstates the russian’s words (“now russia threatens poland with a nuclear attack” – bolt) almost to the point of completely misrepresenting what has occurred. in truth the russians have had long time issues with the siting of the shield, arguing it will “upset the european military balance”. they argue that the siting of the shield is all about russia rather than iran or other rogue nations. the white house on the other hand has dismissed the latest bout of russian resistance as trying to scaremonger and them pissed at the deal the US signed with poland. yet bolt sees nuclear attacks and “a growing russian menace”, with “apologists in the west blaming poland”! presumably code for last century’s world wars revisited.
more bolt alarmism and smoke and mirrors.
18 August, 2008 at 12:12 am
oh dear. be prepared for an influx of ranting angry spittoon dwellers to the site…..
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/cant_brook_barry/
18 August, 2008 at 6:01 am
What’s with the Jeremey?
Seems Andy’s having another childish tantrum and once again showing his narcissistic traits.
18 August, 2008 at 7:54 am
ON the subject of climate change,it reminds me of the story of the BOLT BLOGGER,who returned home after a holiday in Europe. He was just in the door,when the phone rang,and he answered and then hung up.”Who was it” asked his wife.”A wrong number.”he replied. “Some bloke wanting to know if the coast was clear. So I told him to get onto the Bureau of Meteorology.”
18 August, 2008 at 8:54 am
Of the graphs by “Jeremey”, all you need do is to see them to understand what sad kind of child put together a response
Bolt spends 99.5% of his blog doing mockery but can’t handle it when his stuff is sent up.
“Take me seriously!”
“I demand that you take me seriously!”
Uh…sorry.
18 August, 2008 at 9:36 am
Here’s Andy showing some mock concern:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/help_her_dont_exploit_her/
We know you hate her Andy. But, guess what? You know the way you and your followers see her? That’s exactly how others see you. It is you. That’s why you hate her so much. She’s holding up a mirror and you don’t like what you see. Look at all the mindless Rudd hatred and bile you put forward on a daily basis. You’re no better! Don’t you see it?
18 August, 2008 at 9:50 am
How is criticising Rudd’s poor performance “hatred and bile”?
18 August, 2008 at 9:53 am
If you want to see an example of cognitive dissonance at work, Bolt does it better than anyone:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_russian_soldiers_war_snaps/
18 August, 2008 at 9:57 am
I think you miss the point DeanL.
If you read the sequence of events again you will observe that Barry Brook uses the graphs on this site as a refutation of the graphical evidence Bolt used.
I’m sure you’ll agree that Jeremy’s graphs in no way offer any sort of scientific rebuttal, and Bolt is correct to call Brook out on it.
18 August, 2008 at 9:59 am
Huh,
Speaking of cognitive dissonance…
18 August, 2008 at 9:59 am
Bolt: “Via the equally sympathetic Tim Blair.”
Andrew’s use of shitty sarcasm has not improved.
18 August, 2008 at 9:59 am
Yes, very interesting. Now; how is criticising Rudd’s poor performance “hatred and bile”?
18 August, 2008 at 10:07 am
How is criticising Rudd’s poor performance “hatred and bile”?
When you are in love with Rudd and in denial, like some on this site are, then it is hatred and bile to criticise Rudd.
For the rest of us, it is a sign of a health democracy.
I suspect that Dean thinks that Fuelwatch and grocerywatch are fantastic policy.
18 August, 2008 at 10:07 am
Yes Huh, we get the idea. You interpret the “spin, spin, spin”, “control freak”, etc, etc, etc as legitimate, sensible criticism. We understand.
18 August, 2008 at 10:11 am
Yes Huh, we get the idea. You interpret the “spin, spin, spin”, “control freak”, etc, etc, etc as legitimate, sensible criticism. We understand.
Yes dean, because criticising Fuelwatch and grocerywatch is just “spin, spin, spin”, .
18 August, 2008 at 10:12 am
I suppose dean that you also believe Rudd’s spin that criticism of fuelwatch = being in bed with BIG OIL.
18 August, 2008 at 10:24 am
For e.g. Bolt: Clearly Rudd’s attention is elsewhere, and there’s nothing left here for him to watch. Personally, I suspect he now feels Australia is too small a stage for him, anyway.
It’s fair enough to criticise the fact that Rudd has been out of the country. It’s the latter comment that clearly demonstrates what I’m talking about. Juvenile.
I’d expect it from the likes of RadP but aren’t we meant to take Bolt seriously?
18 August, 2008 at 10:29 am
For e.g. Bolt: Clearly Rudd’s attention is elsewhere, and there’s nothing left here for him to watch. Personally, I suspect he now feels Australia is too small a stage for him, anyway.
LOL. You have to do better than that Dean. It is not unreasonable to question Rudd’s commitment to local issues when he has spent 20% of his Prime Ministership overseas.
It is a bit hysterical of you to claim that bolt is being juvenile by making this assumption. Especially when you take into account his policy failures like Fuelwatch, grocery watch… etc.
All your criticism does Dean is expose your hatred for Bolt. I suspect that you would come to this conclusion no matter what Bolt says.
18 August, 2008 at 10:34 am
It is not unreasonable to question Rudd’s commitment to local issues when he has spent 20% of his Prime Ministership overseas.
What did I write just one post back?
F-wittery at its finest, RadP.
18 August, 2008 at 10:39 am
All your criticism does Dean is expose your hatred for Bolt.
But wasn’t it just pointed out that criticism doesn’t amount to hatred, RadP?
It’s hard to believe there are people so dumb that they destroy their own arguments in a single post?
18 August, 2008 at 10:42 am
You should print this thread RadP and hang it up next to your Applied Science degree. Sure, a Certificate of Stupidity isn’t much of a qualification but I think it’s the best you’ll ever do.
18 August, 2008 at 10:44 am
But wasn’t it just pointed out that criticism doesn’t amount to hatred, RadP?
I never said it did dean.
What I said was your criticism exposes your hatred for Bolt.
If you can’t see the difference then there is no hope for you.
18 August, 2008 at 10:51 am
And there you have it from a Bolt supporter: Bolt’s constant criticism of Rudd exposes his hatred for Rudd.
Classic.
18 August, 2008 at 11:00 am
BOLT RULES by getting bloggers to hate each other.
18 August, 2008 at 11:01 am
And there you have it from a Bolt supporter: Bolt’s constant criticism of Rudd exposes his hatred for Rudd.
Once again you have taken a very childish Black or white simplistic view of the argument.
If bolt’s criticisms are unfounded and lacking depth then you would be right. But given Bolt’s criticism of Rudd which you have referred to, it is not unreasonable to criticise a Prime minister’s commitment to the job when he spends 20% of him time overseas, while his local policies are disastrous and failing.
This means that Bolt’s criticism of Rudd does not expose hatred as the criticism is warranted.
On the other hand, you criticism of bolt is lame bad obviously only directed at bolt because you hate him, whereas if the same criticism was made of Howard or made by someone other than Bolt then you would not think it was lame or juvenile. It is this that exposes your hatred for Bolt.
18 August, 2008 at 11:28 am
On the Deveny issue. Here’s what Bolt writes:
An unhappy columnist who writes what seems to me a plea for help, and who confesses she is indeed in trouble, should not be kept in harness by a newspaper hoping to win extra sales from her growing despair.
If you’re sincere, why bother writing the last bit? Why take the opportunity to use someone’s apparent misfortune to question a competitor’s ethics in relation to their handling of an employee. This is Bolt’s nasty hateful streak on display for all to see.
Blair, to his credit, certainly appears to be sincere.
18 August, 2008 at 11:44 am
If you’re sincere, why bother writing the last bit? Why take the opportunity to use someone’s apparent misfortune to question a competitor’s ethics in relation to their handling of an employee. This is Bolt’s nasty hateful streak on display for all to see.
Since when has questioning a companies handling of an employee is trouble, ever been considered nasty hateful streak on display for all to see?
It seems that the argument you have taken Dean is the same argument that a company would take if they were being questioned about their ethics.
You really are grasping at straws Dean.
18 August, 2008 at 11:46 am
FOR FUCKS SAKE, why don’t you get it out of the system, Bolta is a fuck-wit,end of story.
18 August, 2008 at 11:49 am
Geez RadP. Is it right to apply revserse logic to your thesis and state that: Because you never accept any criticism of Bolt, you must therefore be in love with him?
Go to him. Shower him with praise.
18 August, 2008 at 11:58 am
Geez RadP. Is it right to apply revserse logic to your thesis and state that: Because you never accept any criticism of Bolt, you must therefore be in love with him?
You would be wrong to assume that Dean. There are a lot of issues that I disagree with Bolt on. Like his view of same-sex marriage, religion’s place in society, family values… the list goes on.
Given that I find that your criticisms of him today are weak. You are obviously fishing around for something to attack him on. You don’t really care what he has said, you seem to be more interested in attacking him rather than debating the subject of his comments.
18 August, 2008 at 12:01 pm
OK RadP, shows us how Bolt can justify his attack on The Age. Where is the evidence that The Age is exploiting Deveny or has done?
18 August, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Dean, is she on compassionate/stress leave from her job? If No then this is what Bolt is referring too when he says;
An unhappy columnist who writes what seems to me a plea for help, and who confesses she is indeed in trouble, should not be kept in harness by a newspaper hoping to win extra sales from her growing despair
All Bolt is saying is that an employee who is obviously suffering from sever personal issues, should not be expected to work as they did. In other words, the Age should give her leave so that she can deal with her personal issues.
Dean are you saying that it is OK for the AGE to continue to have her work given her cry for help?
18 August, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Bolt’s assertion that The Age would be wrong not to remove Deveny from work is a complete crock.
I have had a lot of experience with sufferers of depression and it’s undoubtedly true to say that removing someone from their work could actually be the worst thing you could do for them.
The comment was idiotic and based on a postion of a situation he could have no knowledge of. Irresponsible and plain dumb.
18 August, 2008 at 12:13 pm
“You don’t really care what he has said, you seem to be more interested in attacking him rather than debating the subject of his comments.”
okay rad, let’s look at what bolta has said:
“An unhappy columnist who writes what seems to me a plea for help, and who confesses she is indeed in trouble, should not be kept in harness by a newspaper hoping to win extra sales from her growing despair.”
firstly, unhappy? bolt’s assessment. secondly, a plea for help? the column bolt links to is a total piss-take. thirdly, confesssing she is indeed in trouble? did you open that link rad? it isn’t deveny cofessing anything! it’s some random commenter reporting third hand. lastly, a newspaper hoping to win extra sales from her growing despair? WTF? where does that come from, no such evidence for that.
if you weren’t so blinded by the man you would see that he is waaaaaaaay off the planet with this latest attack on the age.
18 August, 2008 at 12:17 pm
The amount of dribble Bolt has pored into his blog about Rudd is amazing. Any criticism of Howard was met with a derisory “Howard hater” tag and therefore the criticism was ignored.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for cxriticising PMs and political parties of all stripes, but his childish rantings against Rudd are just that, childish.
Grow up Mr Bolt.
18 August, 2008 at 12:24 pm
I have had a lot of experience with sufferers of depression and it’s undoubtedly true to say that removing someone from their work could actually be the worst thing you could do for them
Dean the accusation is that she admitted to seeking professional help for possible Bi-polar.
She was talking about visiting a shrink and being diagnosed as possibly bipolar, and having Valium in her bag that she’s trying hard not to take
I would have thought that the moral thing to do is to have her get fully treated before she returns to work to continue her column.
it isn’t deveny cofessing anything! it’s some random commenter reporting third hand. lastly, a newspaper hoping to win extra sales from her growing despair? WTF? where does that come from, no such evidence for that.
You are wrong. It is claimed that she admitted this in Daylesford.
I heard Catherine Deveney speak in Daylesford last weekend
18 August, 2008 at 12:28 pm
lol!!
have just scrolled through the boltites debating abortion. what a hoot! any other day of the week their all keen to be libertarians, individual freedom yada yada and hook into the nanny state socialists labor. but on abortion, seems its okay for a bit of nannyism. and why shouldn’t the state have control over women’s bodies? who needs individual freedom?
more contortioning and hypocrisy. these people are insane.
18 August, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I would have thought that the moral thing to do is to have her get fully treated before she returns to work to continue her column.
Once again, RadP doesn’t have the sense to admit he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
18 August, 2008 at 12:30 pm
yes rad:
I HEARD CATHERINE DEVENY SPEAK IN DAYLESFORD
is vastly different to bolta’s:
CONFESSES SHE IS INDEED IN TROUBLE.
surely you see this.
18 August, 2008 at 12:31 pm
All RadP sees is: I have to argue against whatever these people say…
18 August, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I HEARD CATHERINE DEVENY SPEAK IN DAYLESFORD
is vastly different to bolta’s:
CONFESSES SHE IS INDEED IN TROUBLE.
surely you see this.
I would have thought that telling an audience in Daylesford that you are seeing a shrink because you may be Bi-polar was a confession and a cry for help.
I find it disturbing that you would think that it would be just her speaking
18 August, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I would have thought that telling an audience in Daylesford that you are seeing a shrink because you may be Bi-polar was a confession and a cry for help.
Are you actually trying to convince someone of your idiocy?
Isn’t it possibly an admission that you have sought and are receiving help?
18 August, 2008 at 12:39 pm
also, the more i read of this daylesfold outing the more i’m beginning to think it’s more deveny piss-taking. it would be highly unusual to be prescribed valium for bipolar. lithium is what used to get prescribed, but thank god psychs are now more sophisticated in their prescribing cause lithium was not nice. but valium? it would be most unusual. i think what that person heard in daylseford is deveny in comedic mode.
18 August, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Are you actually trying to convince someone of your idiocy?
Isn’t it possibly an admission that you have sought and are receiving help?
Are you trying to convince yourself that a public speaker admitting that they are seeing a shrink, are possibly bi-polar, and struggling not to take a valium in her bag is not a cry for help?
She was talking about visiting a shrink and being diagnosed as possibly bipolar, and having Valium in her bag that she’s trying hard not to take
You can’t be serious Dean?!
18 August, 2008 at 12:44 pm
also, the more i read of this Daylesford outing the more I’m beginning to think it’s more deveny piss-taking
WTF. Of course, because people who admit to possibly being bi-polar are only taking the piss?!
In fact, we just shouldn’t take anyone claiming to be bi-polar seriously!
18 August, 2008 at 12:46 pm
but rad, when you take the word of someone second or third hand you can’t be certain your actually reporting facts. at best bolt and blair have attempted to smear deveny and the age to get a laugh from their sheep using unreliable sources. at worst they have muck-raked in the most offensive way, deliberately choosing to report something that can’t be confirmed as actual fact.
and stating that someone is not well when they have bipolar disorder (unsympathetic tim blair) to me is implying they are incapable of carrying out their normal duties, when we all know that bipolar is easily treated and most sufferers continue in their daily routine with no problems whatsoever. to borrow from timmy, this is simply bipolar-gigglers in my view.
18 August, 2008 at 12:47 pm
RadP – you lied about being Mighty Matt, didn’t you?
I’ve got no doubt at all. You and he are the same.
How sad for you.
18 August, 2008 at 12:51 pm
and stating that someone is not well when they have bipolar disorder (unsympathetic tim blair) to me is implying they are incapable of carrying out their normal duties, when we all know that bipolar is easily treated and most sufferers continue in their daily routine with no problems whatsoever.
That’s only once they start treatment. It is claimed that she is seeing a shrink and is in the stages of being diagnosed.
No one has stated that bipolar disorder means they cannot work. What they are saying is that she should be given time off until she gets treatment.
You are trying to create a strawman.
18 August, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for cxriticising PMs and political parties of all stripes, but his childish rantings against Rudd are just that, childish.
Spot on Skeptic – DeanL provided an excellent demonstration of exactly that above when he quoted Bolt as follows: Clearly Rudd’s attention is elsewhere, and there’s nothing left here for him to watch. Personally, I suspect he now feels Australia is too small a stage for him, anyway.
As Dean pointed out, the first sentence from Bolt is legitimate criticism (with a bit of trite Boltist nonsense about ‘watching’ but that’s bearable). The second sentence is nothing but the aforementioned childish rant – a true insight into the fact that Bolt doesn’t just dislike Rudd’s policies, he hates him as a man. It’s no longer enough for Bolt to criticise Rudd’s policies – his hatred obliges him to attack Rudd on a personal level too.
And his loyal army of sychophants remain, as always, blissfully unaware. Just look at the mindlessness inherent in Rad’s responses to Dean above.
18 August, 2008 at 12:54 pm
RadP – you lied about being Mighty Matt, didn’t you?
Dean I think that it is you that is this Mighty matt person. You seem to be so obsessed with claiming that other people are this person. I think you are trying to deflect attention away from the fact that you are mighty matt.
18 August, 2008 at 12:56 pm
What do you reckon, Mondo? RadP = Mighty Matt.
Could there be two?
18 August, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Rad, I just can’t understand why 60 minutes didn’t interview you on last nights program.
18 August, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Are you trying to convince yourself that a public speaker admitting that they are seeing a shrink, are possibly bi-polar, and struggling not to take a valium in her bag is not a cry for help?
This is an utterly ridiculous discussion.
Clearly Bolt is having a go at Deveney. He has a long history of conflict with her – she is a regular target of his columns.
For Rad P to waste everyone’s time here by pretending to honestly believe that Bolt’s concern is genuine, is utterly ridiculous. Rad – you’re a liar, and a pathetic one at that. You don’t actually believe what you’re writing here – you know as well as everyone else that Bolt is making fun of Deveney and NOT expressing genuine concern for her alleged condition.
Rad’s participation in this discussion is trolling at its absolute worst. I don’t think he’s Mighty Matt – his grasp of basic english grammar is too good – but I do think he is equally dishonest and stupid.
18 August, 2008 at 2:07 pm
“No one has stated that bipolar disorder means they cannot work. What they are saying is that she should be given time off until she gets treatment.”
jeesh, it’s like arguing with a 4yo. nobody has STATED, but as i said, the implication is there. from blair who states she isn’t well and “columnist down”, and bolta who tries to make it about the age exploiting her. anyway, do you even know whether the account of her daylesford expedition is accurate? or are you doing a bolt and just assuming that it is?
18 August, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Mondo: I don’t think he’s Mighty Matt – his grasp of basic english grammar is too good – but I do think he is equally dishonest and stupid.
Well, it was never good for RadP either way. He is either Mighty Matt and a liar or else he is nearly identical in thought process and debating style to one of the most irrational and disingenuous people I’ve ever had the misfortune to “meet”.
18 August, 2008 at 3:59 pm
It’s definitely irrational and disingenuous – Rad’s moronic insistence on making this a debate about whether Deveney has issued a ‘cry for help’ or not is precicely the sort of vapid distraction that Matt would have trotted out in an attempt to disguise the paucity of his argument.
18 August, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Irrational and disingenuous is right Mondo.
He does also share the ‘lightning foolish response’ that Might Matt was famous for.
Again…this clown must be on the Neocon payroll.
18 August, 2008 at 4:28 pm
and right DeanL also, I should say…
18 August, 2008 at 4:34 pm
“He does also share the ‘lightning foolish response’ that Might Matt was famous for.”
except when he gets pinged. then you don’t hear a peep from him.
18 August, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I would have thought that telling an audience in Daylesford that you are seeing a shrink because you may be Bi-polar was a confession and a cry for help.
I find it disturbing that you would think that it would be just her speaking
***************************************
At the risk of feeding the trolls…
Rad, have you ever been to a sportsmans night, book launch or comedy night?
Do you honestly believe that speakers at these functions tell 100% factual material?
The role of a public speaker is to entertain, and if that means embellishing, exaggerating or plain making stories up, so be it. As long as the audience is engaged, who cares how true it is?
Surely you can’t be so gullible as to believe everything a person armed with a microphone has to say?
(I’ll await your response in the CD thread)
19 August, 2008 at 7:59 am
Rad, I just can’t understand why 60 minutes didn’t interview you on last nights program
What a great article they did on Global Warming. Finally a media organisation that is willing to show both sides of the debate.
Unfortunately for rudd, it exposed him on his Climate Change policies as bias and almost Climate Change evangelistic. I can only assume that Rudd was majorly pissed off at 60 minutes.
19 August, 2008 at 9:59 am
Rad: “I can only assume”
Why would Rudd watch 60 minutes? Or care what was on it? It is a show that has become a cross between Woman’s Weekly and Who magazine.
60 minutes has the credibility of a decaf coffee.
19 August, 2008 at 10:16 am
Unfortunately for rudd, it exposed him on his Climate Change policies as bias and almost Climate Change evangelistic. I can only assume that Rudd was majorly pissed off at 60 minutes.
OK – DeanL – I’m on board now. Rad P is Mighty Matt. The undisguised trolling has finally been paired with clumsy English and nonsensical phrasing – Matt’s trademarks.
Lets see how long he lasts this time round . . . .
19 August, 2008 at 10:51 am
http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans
THis is an interesting article on David Evans, who was featured on 60 minutes pathetic climate change feature last Sunday night.
Evans ideas (championed by people like Rad) have been torn to shreads in the past.
19 August, 2008 at 11:32 am
The ‘Manipulation Diet’ fed to the lowest common denominator…
Breakfast: ‘Herald Sun’
Lunch: Radio Shock Jocks
Dinner: ‘Today Tonight’
After Dinner Mint: ‘60 Minutes’
Toilet Reading: Andrew Bolt
“We guarantee that you’ll lose thousands of brain cells or your money back!”
Rupert Murdoch
19 August, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Mondo: Lets see how long he lasts this time round . . . .
I recall that he said we wouldn’t know if it was him, yet he’s been caught a few times now, trying to sneak back in amongst the humans…
I like this litte bit too:
RadP: I think you are trying to deflect attention away from the fact that you are mighty matt.
Mighty Matt would be just the type to think this was some sort of clever subterfuge.
Sad Case.
19 August, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Pure Gold
http://libertynewscentral.podomatic.com/
19 August, 2008 at 3:07 pm
THis is an interesting article on David Evans, who was featured on 60 minutes pathetic climate change feature last Sunday night.
The desmog website no longer has any credibility.
Well let’s first of all begin on this question of funding, and let us talk about the funding for DeSmog Blog. Now DeSmog Blog was founded with $300,000 of money from a man called John Lefebvre who is an Internet gaming fraudster convicted last year of making hundreds of millions of dollars—a large chunk of which he is now being made to pay back to the U.S. government—by unlawfully laundering money to do with unlawful Internet gaming.
He is the person who got into bed with Mr. Littlemore’s boss at a PR [public relations] company, a Mr. James Haugen, and they took up the DeSmog Blog, whose job of course is not to debate the science of climate, but to inaccurately misrepresent the alleged or supposed or imagined funding of anyone who dares to challenge the supposed consensus on the climate. So let’s get that thing clear first of all. DeSmog Blog was founded, is funded, and is run by a convicted and self-confessed crook, and furthermore that crook is now in the business of running a solar energy corporation and therefore has a direct vested interest in peddling the climate change scare.
I would start by making it clear that Mr. Littlemore is a public relations executive working for a convicted Internet fraudster.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23673
19 August, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Hang on Matt – Are you saying David Evans is a “rocket scientist”? or just talking crap to try and shoot the messenger that has dismantled his credibility?
Hasn’t Bolt himself had a go at Flannery for not being a climatologist?
19 August, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Yes, Matt, we too can read Bolt’s blog. No need to regurgitate it here as if it’s your own work.
The desmog website no longer has any credibility.
So, now you are saying Desmog has no credibility because of its association with $climate?
OK. Therefore you will never utter the “smear” argument again.
Not only that but, because of your above assertion and the fact that David Evans, has pointed out himself that he worked for an energy company with a self-confessed mandate to “look after the company’s business interests”, you have confirmed that Evans has no credibility.
Once again, Matt destroys his own argument!
19 August, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Once again, Matt destroys his own argument!
I once said of Matt that he disproves the notion that being ‘unable to fight your way out of a paper bag’ is a negative debating attribute. Matt’s lettuce-like blows, delivered from inside the metaphoric soggy bag, are actually significantly distracting.
I’ve seen whole forums full of intelligent bloggers become completely disarmed as they focused their curiosity on the strangely moving paper bag in the corner, rather than on the substantive topics being discussed by others. One should never discount the ability of Matt to derail a discussion – even where his arguments are circular or self-contradictory.
Responding to his posts is like stepping into quicksand. I will be avoiding it going forward and I recommend that others here do the same.
19 August, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Did Mighty Matt forget the declaration most sensible bloggers were screaming at him?…
19 August, 2008 at 5:00 pm
It’s a good point, Mondo.
And the trouble with debating a denialist is that they will obviously deny being disproved or discredited. Have a look at Bolt at this very minute: there he is saying he has beaten Manne in the SG debate. He links to his own analysis and reports to prove this!
The thing is though, when you abstain from the debate – even with fools – it opens you up to the claim that you won’t debate because you don’t have a strong argument.
I know RadP/MightyMatt is never, ever going to change his mind or admit he is wrong – I know he’s incapable of that. And anyone that has read any of Bolt will realise that applies to him too.
[And, I'll bet Matt would say: but the same is true of you. Well, as I've said before: I desperately want to see AGW disproved. Why on earth would I want it to be true? I am firmly entrenched in the technological age and I love it. I don't want to have to give up even a little of what I enjoy. Surely this is true of any sensible "average" person? But Bolt's argument relies on constructing a conspiracy theory and a strawman that: like lemmings, all the "believers" are masochists or anti-western or anti-demcratic or whatever - laughably inane and irrational but, once again, once you give into denialism...]
The value in debating – even with fools – is that, rational sceptical people get the chance to view the arguments.
19 August, 2008 at 5:51 pm
So, now you are saying Desmog has no credibility because of its association with $climate
Are you really that stupid dude?
Rad has shown that the Desmog web blog is funded by a convicted Internet fraudster.
19 August, 2008 at 5:55 pm
And the trouble with debating a denialist is that they will obviously deny being disproved or discredited
Mate, you are the denialist. You have been presented with clear evidence that exposes the fraud of DeSmog, and all you can do is harp on about irrelevant shit.
19 August, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Responding to his posts is like stepping into quicksand. I will be avoiding it going forward and I recommend that others here do the same.
Nice avoidance of the argument dude. How about dealing with the evidence that was presented by Rad about DeSmog instead of attacking the messenger.
This is typical of the climate change freaks. They attack the man instead of debating the science.
19 August, 2008 at 7:08 pm
You have been presented with clear evidence that exposes the fraud of DeSmog
We have been presented with evidence that a financial-backer has been convicted (and that isn’t even clear) of a gamling-related offence who also has a solar-related business (apparently).
This demonstrates that DeSmog is a fraud does it?
Right.
19 August, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Ron Blogger: the Desmog web blog is funded by a convicted Internet fraudster.
Two comments later: This is typical of the climate change freaks. They attack the man instead of debating the science.
Ron Blogger: Stupid.
20 August, 2008 at 7:38 am
This demonstrates that DeSmog is a fraud does it?
It means they are a joke and cannot be taken as a credible source because their site is for the purpose of smearing anyone who challenges the theory of AGW.
He is the person who got into bed with Mr. Littlemore’s boss at a PR [public relations] company, a Mr. James Haugen, and they took up the DeSmog Blog, whose job of course is not to debate the science of climate, but to inaccurately misrepresent the alleged or supposed or imagined funding of anyone who dares to challenge the supposed consensus on the climate. So let’s get that thing clear first of all
They loose their credibility because they themselves are compromised because Mr Littlemore is a public relations executive working for a convicted Internet fraudster. He is NOT a climate scientist rather a public relations executive.
So given all this information the site is NOT credible and highly compromised and can not be taken seriously as a credible source in the Climate Change debate. Especially if, like John51 linked to, DeSmog are trying to smear scientists which are sceptical of AGW while they themselves are funded by convicted criminals.
20 August, 2008 at 8:25 am
“It means they are a joke and cannot be taken as a credible source because their site is for the purpose of smearing anyone who challenges the theory of AGW.”
Andrew Bolt is a convicted defamer – has no science background or qualifications yet YOU believe him.
For you, a fan of Bolt to question others credibility is laughable!
20 August, 2008 at 9:06 am
Andrew Bolt is a convicted defamer – has no science background or qualifications yet YOU believe him
Andrew isn’t a public relations executive working for a convicted Internet fraudster .
20 August, 2008 at 9:30 am
But hang on Rad (Matt) – you still have not answered the question regaridng the so called “expert” or “rocket scientist” David Evans.
Stop going off on a tangent to try and hide the facts that the person Bolt has been using as a poster boy has no relevant qualifications or reviewed articles.
20 August, 2008 at 9:47 am
But hang on Rad (Matt) – you still have not answered the question regaridng the so called “expert” or “rocket scientist” David Evans
All that comes down to is definition of what is a Rocket scientist. He has a PHD in electrical engineering. That more than qualifies him for rocket science.
But of course that is a typical distraction from the real evidence and that is David’s other qualifications.
DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
The problem is that you are trying to use a discredited blog site to discredit a Climate Change sceptic on the argument of what is the definition of a Rocket Scientist. Given the track record of DeSmog, they are hardly the right people to define what a rocket scientist is.
The real issue for you is that David Evans highlights the fact that the smoking gun of AGW, the mid-troposphere hot spot is missing, bringing into question the entire IPCC report which bases it’s computer modelling and prediction on this Hot Spot.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Your main issue now Dam is that DeSmog’s definition of What is a rocket scientists doesn’t mean that the Hot spot issue vanishes.
20 August, 2008 at 9:49 am
So, he’s a defamer and YOU hang off his every word (or so it appears considering the defences you put up here)
To defame is to LIE! And your hero has been convicted, thus if you had any sense you’d take everything he says with a massive pinch of salt…
Plus the fact he has no qualifications whatsoever regarding climate change OR ANY science, yet you not only blindly swallow whatever he says, you even come here to defend him.
He can’t even do simple arithmetic (can you remember his cock up regarding dams v water tanks?)
20 August, 2008 at 9:58 am
To defame is to LIE! And your hero has been convicted, thus if you had any sense you’d take everything he says with a massive pinch of salt…
LOL You obviously don’t read what you write. Part of this debate is the credibility of DeSmog which prides itself on defaming climate change sceptics.
In their defence you say To defame is to LIE! .
Do you realise the total stupidity of what you are saying?!
20 August, 2008 at 10:27 am
The value in debating – even with fools – is that, rational sceptical people get the chance to view the arguments.
Love your work Dean – but you’re wrong on this one.
Just look at the ridiculous discussion already occurring above. The idiotic claims by Matt, the total lack of reason or consistency in his analysis, the bald assertions stated as though they are established fact. RobJ and Dean are already caught in the quicksand of Matt’s quite deliberate trolling – the more they struggle, the deeper they’ll sink.
Ron Blogger would be a better partner for this debate – he has yet to prove himself incapable of applying basic reason to an argument or position.
20 August, 2008 at 10:27 am
I’m pointing out your rank hypocrisy, that you have a go at others credibility regarding the climate change debate but you swallow the Bolt line hook, line and sinker. LOL indeed.
Can you explain why you think Bolt should be believed, does he have qualifications us mere mortals are unaware of?
“Do you realise the total stupidity of what you are saying?”
No, I don’t, how about you explain it to me? Defamation is truth? War is peace?????? Bolt is honest?
20 August, 2008 at 10:37 am
Can you explain why you think Bolt should be believed, does he have qualifications us mere mortals are unaware of
There’s your problem Rob. You are trying to make this a debate about Bolt when we are discussing the credibly of David Evans and DeSmog in reference to the science that the AGW signature of a hot spot in the mid-troposphere is missing, brining into question the validity of the IPCC report and computer modelling.
What people think of Bolt doesn’t make the missing hot spot in the mid-troposphere disappear. Likewise, DeSmog’s debate over what is a rocket scientist doesn’t make it vanish either.
20 August, 2008 at 10:49 am
“There’s your problem Rob. You are trying to make this a debate about Bolt when we are discussing the credibly of David Evans and DeSmog”
No – I’m merely highlighting your hypocrisy thus your lack of credibility.
“What people think of Bolt doesn’t make the missing hot spot in the mid-troposphere disappear.”
But, what you think of Bolt clearly shows that you have zero credibility on the subject.
I’m a sceptic myself, a sceptic because the science is hard and more importantly time consuming. As a sceptic I prefer to err on the side of caution. Bolt isn’t a sceptic, Bolt is convinced that AGW is not occurring. I’ll happily admit that I don’t know if it’s occurring or not.
20 August, 2008 at 11:09 am
robj your wasting your time with rad. his unfailing blind devotion to bolt renders him incapable of seeing alternative viewpoint. and he’ll twist your words to suit his own agenda. a true boltard.
20 August, 2008 at 11:15 am
No – I’m merely highlighting your hypocrisy thus your lack of credibility.
There is no hypocrisy because I have not mentioned Bolt’s credibility in this debate.
I’m a sceptic myself, a sceptic because the science is hard and more importantly time consuming. As a sceptic I prefer to err on the side of caution. Bolt isn’t a sceptic, Bolt is convinced that AGW is not occurring. I’ll happily admit that I don’t know if it’s occurring or not
LOL. You don’t know what the meaning of a sceptic is. If you are a sceptic then you are NOT convinced that it is happening. You are not a sceptic rob if you choose to believe that AGW is happening based on your lack of knowledge. You are a sceptic if you are NOT convinced that AGW is real and will not be convinced until the evidence is conclusive.
Given that you CLAIM to be a AGW sceptic, what are your thoughts on the IPCC report now that the AGW signiture is missing? Do you agree that it brings into question the validity of the computer projections?
20 August, 2008 at 11:41 am
“”LOL. You don’t know what the meaning of a sceptic is. If you are a sceptic then you are NOT convinced that it is happening.”
I’m not convinced – Bolt IS CONVINCED that there is no such thing as AGW. Bolt is not a sceptic, he’s a denier like you. (or I should say that you’re a denier like him ;o) )
“There is no hypocrisy because I have not mentioned Bolt’s credibility in this debate. ”
Nevertheless you support Bolt’s stance on AGW. This particular thread is not taking place in a vacuum.
“robj your wasting your time with rad. ”
You’re quite correct confessions, I will heed your advice.
20 August, 2008 at 11:54 am
Bolt IS CONVINCED that there is no such thing as AGW. Bolt is not a sceptic, he’s a denier like you.
That just doesn’t make since. You can only be a denier of something that is proven beyond doubt to be real. There is still a mountain of scientific evidence that proves that Climate Change is not caused by AGW. AGW is still being debated in the scientific community so it is wrong to be labelling people as deniers.
Also the scientific principle of “falsification” means that Denialism is a term that should NEVER be used in scientific debate.
Also, Bolt is sceptical of AGW because of the scientific evidence that disproves AGW. Like the missing Hot spot in the mid troposphere.
20 August, 2008 at 12:10 pm
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_war_on_science_16.php
More on David Evans!!!! His arguments are rubbish but Boltstrokers just can’t get enough.
20 August, 2008 at 12:17 pm
You can only be a denier of something that is proven beyond doubt to be real. There is still a mountain of scientific evidence that proves that Climate Change is not caused by AGW.
So hilarious. There’s not even a tenuous thread connecting Matt’s argument to the realms of reason, logic or reality. It’s just mindless assertion based on nothing more than personal opinion.
I can’t believe I failed to recognise him for so long. Kudos to you Matt – you did a great job (initially at least) disguising your identity.
You can go back to calling Rudd ‘Krudd’ now if you like – it must have been killing you to hold back from using your favourite nickname for so long.
20 August, 2008 at 12:32 pm
What a load of deceptive crap that post is John51.
The scientific argument is that the smoking gun of AGW (also stated in the IPCC report) is a hot spot in the mid troposphere.
The post not only agrees that there has been no warming in the mid-troposphere, it goes on to try and re-invent what the AGW signiture is. The post claims that what David Evans says is crap, then it is deceptive by claiming that hot spots exist in graphs that have nothing to do with the mid-troposphere.
Also they try and re-invent the wheel by claiming the AGW signature is in the cooling in the stratosphere, which means nothing without the hotspot in the mid-troposphere.
Both patterns include a hot spot. The difference between the two graphs is that the CO2 one shows cooling in the stratosphere, while the right one does not, so the “greenhouse signature” is stratospheric cooling. And guess what, that’s what’s been happening
BTW – these graphs have nothing to do with tempreture in the mid-tropeshere or even anything to do with dealing with David evan’s argument.
Only then do they finally go on to admit;
If the hot spot really is missing it does not prove that CO2 is not causing warming, but it would indicate something wrong with the models.
John you have to do better than this deceptive crap. It does not deal with David Evan’s scientific evidence.
20 August, 2008 at 12:38 pm
So hilarious. There’s not even a tenuous thread connecting Matt’s argument to the realms of reason, logic or reality. It’s just mindless assertion based on nothing more than personal opinion
OK MRock, explain to me how a person can be a denier of a scientific theory, that is still being debated and relates to a chaotic system such as climate which still has most of the science un discovered?
Calling someone a climate change denialist is equivalent to calling a person who believes in the theory of relativity a denialist of Newtonian mechanics.
20 August, 2008 at 1:00 pm
OK MRock, explain to me how a person can be a denier of a scientific theory, that is still being debated and relates to a chaotic system such as climate which still has most of the science un discovered?
No Matt, I won’t engage in any sort of argument with you – there’s no point. You are a dishonest troll who is incapable of participating in a discussion in a sensible or rational fashion. You do not argue in good faith – which was well established upon your departure from Anonymous Lefty.
I’m happy to ridicule you on an ad-hoc basis though, particularly when you make utterly stupid statements like those above, so that’s something at least. Engaging you in debate would, however, be a completely pointless waste of my time.
20 August, 2008 at 1:09 pm
No Matt, I won’t engage in any sort of argument with you – there’s no point. You are a dishonest troll who is incapable of participating in a discussion in a sensible or rational fashion. You do not argue in good faith – which was well established upon your departure from Anonymous Lef
In other words you are using the accusation that I am this Mighty matt person, to avoid debate. You are happy to throw in the accusation comment but when you are shown to be wrong, you conveniently hide behind Might matt.
I am beginning to believe that this Mighty matt person does not exist and the leftiods on this site like MRock and dean use it as an excuse to hide behind when they can no longer keep up with the debate.
20 August, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Well put Mondo.
I seem to remember we all made a pact to ignore Mighty Matt’s bullshit over at AnonLefty.
Life’s too short to engage with this troll. His cyclical rehashing is mind-numbing.
20 August, 2008 at 1:17 pm
BTW – How many other people have been called Mighty matt on this site? I get the impression that anyone who doesn’t agree with you = mighty matt.
20 August, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Rad – Have you ever posted as Mighty Matt – YES OR NO?
20 August, 2008 at 1:42 pm
For the record, I don’t believe that Rap Pipper is Mighty Matt. The latter’s grammar was much worse, and Rad’s comments are missing the random capitalisation, the ampersands, the consecutive exclamation marks and a few other of Matt’s hallmarks.
The infantile logic is identical, but that’s about it.
Rad Pipper used to comment here as “Marc” in the early days of the site — not that that necessarily means anything, since Mighty Matt was revealed to have used the name “Cameron” at AnonymousLefty before that alias was banned.
In some ways, it’s a tragedy that Matt and Rad are in fact two people: I would have been much more comfortable with the idea that there existed only one person on earth with his astonishing capacity for irrationality.
But there you go.
20 August, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Rad – Have you ever posted as Mighty Matt – YES OR NO?
I have already answered that question from Dean and the answer is no.
Personally I am sceptical that this Mighty Matt person ever existed. It just seems all to convenient to throw in the Might matt card when the debate doesn’t go your way. I believe that Mighty matt is a strawman.
I have a question for you DBoPreaston. Have you ever had personal experience with this Mighty Matt person?
20 August, 2008 at 2:04 pm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
Lets see more “gymnatics on the parallel bars” from you, Rad. Unfortunately your landing is costing you a place out of the medals.
20 August, 2008 at 2:05 pm
You are happy to throw in the accusation comment but when you are shown to be wrong, you conveniently hide behind Might matt.
You haven’t shown me to be wrong about anything – I haven’t even made an argument that you’ve responded to. Yet more random nonsense I’m afraid.
20 August, 2008 at 2:05 pm
That “gymnastics” folks. Sorry.
20 August, 2008 at 2:09 pm
The debate doesn’t go our way?
RadP thinks he’s winning!
He has been shown that his ridiculous talk about climate and chaos is inconsequential and the reasons for that – by the experts (which he then smeared).
He has been shown where David Evans’ “no hot spot” theory originates from and why it is incorrect.
And then he says that because most scientific theory are either disproved or improved upon that he can be sure that AGW will be disproved.
He had no answers to this except deflection and obfuscation; and yet here he is saying the debate is going his way.
He may not be Mighty Matt but he is a denialist and a fool.
20 August, 2008 at 2:12 pm
I have put this up before Rad.
http://www.scottchurchdirect.com/docs/global-warming-troposphere120.pdf
You will need to read it thoroughly and not just the intro. I know it will be difficult for you but try.
20 August, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Perhaps RadP believe that the more LOLs he uses, the more convincing his nonsense appears?
20 August, 2008 at 2:17 pm
That “gymnastics” folks. Sorry
You mean that post you linked to trying to discredit David Evans by avoiding the real issue and that is this; the IPCC admits that the AGW signature was a hotspot in the mid-troposphere which has NOT happened. This now brings into question the IPCC’s computer modelling and the theory of AGW.
20 August, 2008 at 2:21 pm
More comments on that fraud, Evans.
http://www.culturekitchen.com/mole333/blog/the_latest_global_warming_denial_drivel#comment
Gosh Rad, you are copping a hiding today, old son.
20 August, 2008 at 2:23 pm
No John51, the debate is going his way!
Otherwise, why would we call him Mighty Matt. Don’t you understand the logic?
20 August, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Hold the presses!!!
Andy says the disc jockeys at Nova are confused as a result of 60′!
Now the Nova disc-jockeys are all confused what to believe (listen here). The 60 Minutes report is having an effect.
Well, what more evidence could we have that AGW is crumbling before our very eyes?!
20 August, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Thats how Andy plays the game by sowing seeds of confusion, as well as 60 mins.
20 August, 2008 at 2:33 pm
You are making a fool of yourself john by linking to these blog sites.
So according to this latest one, David Evans is wrong because;
Specifically, anthropogenic global warming does NOT require the formation of “a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics” according to my wife
Ohhhhh Now that’s scientific!
I have noticed that the argument being put forward in this post is similar to the other you linked to and that is it deceptively avoids the IPCC’s AGW signiture of a hotspot in the mid-tropsephere. They agree that no warming has been found in the mid-tropsephere, but like the other post, they are trying to re-invent what the IPCC states is the AGW signiture.
Even worse but this post you have linked to uses the last post you linked to as it’s sourse.
Both show a hot spot. In reality, the defining feature of the carbon dioxide based model is stratospheric cooling.
The AGW signiture is the COMBINATION of a hotspot in the mid tropsherewith cooling in the stratoshere. You forget to mention that cooling in the mid stropshere is also associated with GW cause by solar radiation.
20 August, 2008 at 2:37 pm
“Now the Nova disc-jockeys are all confused what to believe (listen here). The 60 Minutes report is having an effect.”
lol!! and yum cha is setting new standards for olympics reporting.
20 August, 2008 at 2:40 pm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
More on solar radiation above.
Rad, you need to read Scott Church’s paper carefully!!! (especially at about page 58-59) Is it too hard???
20 August, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Rad, you need to read Scott Church’s paper carefully!!! (especially at about page 58-59) Is it too hard???
Why john? Is it as scientifically dyslexic as the last one that you just linked to;
Specifically, anthropogenic global warming does NOT require the formation of “a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics” according to my wife
20 August, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Rad – I have not had the pleasure of meeting MM in person. The reason why i ask if you and he are the same is because you both use the same illogical troll tactics and then when painted into a corner you dissappear.
You have partially moved the argument about Bolt’s ability to use partial quotes and outright bull shit intrepretations from people in the media to turn them into some definate argument – Now you have turned it into an AGW he said/she said.
That was a fav tactic of MM.
A number of people here have linked articles, reports, and other opinions discrediting David Evans, as they have discrediting Bolt’s flawed arguments. You come back and ask “what do you believe?” etc to try and deflect the point that the argument is flawed and make it all about a single opinion. You have made 30 comments here so far with 3 links. 2 of which are to oil related think tanks and the third is the Australian…
geesh
20 August, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Ohhhhh Now that’s scientific!
Note that Matt quite deliberately fails to mention that the article clearly states that the writer’s wife is a climate scientist at Columbia University.
More deliberate misrepresentation and quoting out of context. Could his inability to argue in good faith be any more transparent?
20 August, 2008 at 3:02 pm
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
This section of the IPCC report is very interesting but detailed. Rad, have you really read any of this or are you kidding us?
Go ahead and read Scott Church’s paper. I notice a little fear coming from your direction Rad.
20 August, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I’d rescue you from the quicksand, Mondo but I’m struggling to help you with your ankle, when I’m in up to my neck!
20 August, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Dean – I’m carefully avoiding actual direct argument with Matt. Much more satisfying to simply highlight the paucity of logic within his posts to others and then laugh as he attempts to engage me in his pointless semantics.
20 August, 2008 at 3:09 pm
OK. But grab hold of the rope anyway…
20 August, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Actually, if you read Jennifer Marohasy’s blog she’s been acting exactly like Sonia Kruger lately.
20 August, 2008 at 3:47 pm
boltard logic on graph interpretation:
“I place a lot of emphasis on raphs when investing in shares. With the raphs shown I would not be investing.
Sooner or later those who have will lose unless they short teh stock. In our media I believe that have short changed us in this matter.
Mick Davis of Tasmania (Reply)
Wed 20 Aug 08 (02:34pm)”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/feeling_cold_thinking_hot/
21 August, 2008 at 11:00 am
What is so hard to understand about the concept of ERRING ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION.
For fucks sake, Rad. You dont understand the science. Most people don’t.
Many people who post here probably consider themselves sceptics, but are smart enough to realise that it is safer to try to do something about AGW and be proved wrong at a later date, than to do nothing until its too late.
You are not a sceptic, you are quite obviously 100% convinced about AGW and are using the ‘argument is never over’ and ‘falsification’ as ammo in you ideological war.
Answer this question Rad.
Who sounds more like a AGW evangelist?
The people here who admit to not understanding the science, and prefer to err on the side of caution when dealing with a potentially cataclysmic event?
Or… a man with no qualifications of any kind, who is UTTERLY convinced that AGW is not happening. A paranoid, narcissistic fantasist who talks of the ‘green fraud’, the ‘left/green/climate scientist conspiracy’ and the burning desire of ‘the left’ to deliberately ruin our own country’s economy to further our Gaia worshipping agenda?
Bolt is a fucking idiot and a conspiracy theory nutcase. And so are you.
21 August, 2008 at 11:17 am
Who sounds more like a AGW evangelist?
That would be those that claim that the science is settled on AGW and the debate is over. The likes of Al Gore and Tim flannery who refuse to accept that the debate is still occurring and the science is far from settled. I find it interesting that it is the climate change sceptics like bolt that call for MORE debate, while it is the AGW fanatics like flannery and Gore that refuse to debate while trying to stamp out debate.
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35&Itemid=1
The people here who admit to not understanding the science, and prefer to err on the side of caution when dealing with a potentially cataclysmic event?
Now you have just proven that you are an AGW evangelist with that very one statement. You refer to AGW as potentially cataclysmic event. Even the IPCC doesn’t make such bold end of the world statements like that.
The truth is that the very nature of the end of the world, climatic Armageddon talk shows which side of this debate is more into environmental religion when it comes to climate change.
DbD would you support more balanced debate in the media on AWG? What did you think of the 60 mins story last Sunday. Did it anger you that they dared to show those that argue AGW is not happening or where you happy to hear their side of the debate?
21 August, 2008 at 11:41 am
Who did you vote for last election RadP?
21 August, 2008 at 11:54 am
Who did you vote for last election RadP?
The Libs
21 August, 2008 at 11:59 am
Here is the Libs policy for the 2007 in relation to the environment and GW:
http://www.liberal.org.au/about/documents/CleanEnergy.pdf
It states:
A re-elected Coalition Government will establish a long-term emissions
reduction target in 2008. Determining our target, and how we achieve
it, will be among the most important economic decisions we make over
the next decade.
A re-elected Coalition Government will establish the world’s most
comprehensive emissions trading scheme in Australia, commencing no
later than 2012. The scheme will be the primary mechanism for
reducing Australia’s emissions at least cost to families and to
Australia’s economy.
Bolt and our very own RadP have stated that action on AGW, including the introduction of ETSs will be economically catastrophic globally and for Australia and is unnecessary and futile. Yet, it is very clear that the Libs believed and still believe that AGW was real and had to be acted upon. And, yes we know they have that ever-so-important caveat that Australia acting alone cannot address the problem and it is only worthwhile if global action is taken (by jingo, how profound!)
So, if either of them voted Liberal, then, I put it to you, their credibility is completely shot to pieces.
21 August, 2008 at 12:02 pm
credibility is completely shot to pieces
[Like, it wasn't already...]
21 August, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Prediction: RadP will use the “better of two evils” argument.
21 August, 2008 at 12:07 pm
So, if either of them voted Liberal, then, I put it to you, their credibility is completely shot to pieces
That would have to be the dumbest thing you have ever said Dean. You are making the assumption that there is only ONE issue that should be considered when voting. Climate change was NOT the most important factor in the 2007 election. Maybe if you are a climate change evangelist it is but not if you are the average voter.
It is just not possible for a voter to find a party which they would agree with every policy on. As a voter you need to determine what issues matter most to you and then vote for the party that has the policies that work best.
For me, the most pressing issue was the continuation of Australia’s economic success. The Libs had more than proven they were the best party to govern so that our economic prosperity continued. The ALP have also proven over the last 10 months that their economic credentials are inferior to the Libs. Just look at their policies on Fuelwatch, grocerywatch, alcopops… etc
21 August, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Climate change was NOT the most important factor in the 2007 election.
But action on climate change is going to wreck the economy! Isn’t it?
21 August, 2008 at 12:12 pm
RadP cites the Libs as being great economic managers for the reason he voted for them and yet he says that a policy they are intent on implementing will wreck the economy!
Cognitive dissonance at its finest!
21 August, 2008 at 12:16 pm
But action on climate change is going to wreck the economy! Isn’t it?
It will left in the hands of the ALP.
At least the Libs are willing discuss waiting until the big emitters take up an ETS before we fully implement one. The economic damage occurs when countries like China, India and the USA don’t have ETS. This would lead to companies re-locating out of Australia to save money and while imports become more attractive to consumers.
Now we all know that the big emitters will never implement an ETS so the beauty of the Libs plan is that any ETS implemented will be so weak that it will have minimal impact on the economy.
21 August, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Yep, folks. RadP believes that is rock-solid logic!
21 August, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Thanks for the laughs, RadP.
21 August, 2008 at 12:20 pm
RadP cites the Libs as being great economic managers for the reason he voted for them and yet he says that a policy they are intent on implementing will wreck the economy!
Cognitive dissonance at its finest
Maybe you should wait until I answer your question before trying to predict what my answer may be. You are making a fool of yourself by doing so.
21 August, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Yep, folks. RadP believes that is rock-solid logic!
So Dean, what do you believe the Libs ETS policy is?
21 August, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Oh I get it. Dean still believes that India, China and the USA will implement an ETS. LOL
Do you also believe in the tooth fairy dean?
21 August, 2008 at 12:26 pm
What do you reckon DbD – did you obtain any satisfaction from your interaction with Matt?
Do you like the way you asked him to choose between two options (i.e. which of the two is more of an ‘evangelist’) and he ignored you and simply offered a third option that was completely irrelevant to your question?
What about the way he categorically branded you as an ‘evangelist’ simply because you used the word ‘cataclysmic’ (which I think Matt has confused with ‘apocalyptic’)?
Overall, what do you think of the experience of arguing with someone who refuses to approach the discussion in good faith?
21 August, 2008 at 12:29 pm
What do you reckon DbD – did you obtain any satisfaction from your interaction with Matt?
Good one Mrock. Your playing the mighty matt card again. Rather sad isn’t it. You know what they say Mrock, if you can’t stand the heat…..
21 August, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Would the parents of Matt please come and pick him up?
21 August, 2008 at 12:57 pm
“Would the parents of Matt please come and pick him up?”
LOL!!
21 August, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Hey Rad – what name do you post under at Bolt’s blog?
It’s not ‘Matt’ is it?
21 August, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Hey Rad – what name do you post under at Bolt’s blog?
I post there as Rad. But it has been a while since I have posted there.
What name do you post under at Bolt’s blog? Barry Bones? Or is that Dean?
21 August, 2008 at 1:40 pm
I thought Jeremy was meant to be Barry Bones? Now it’s Dean or me?
You guys are hilarious.
21 August, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I thought Jeremy was meant to be Barry Bones?
He was?
21 August, 2008 at 1:46 pm
You guys are hilarious
just as hilarious as you calling everyone Mighty matt
21 August, 2008 at 1:48 pm
calling everyone Mighty matt
Spot the MightMatt-ish lie?
21 August, 2008 at 1:50 pm
just as hilarious as you calling everyone Mighty matt
Please name a single other commenter who I have accused of being Mighty Matt.
Just one will do – anything at all to back up your claim that I call “everyone” Mighty Matt. Or is this another of your exaggerated, disingenuous and totally irrational claims?
21 August, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Spot the MightMatt-ish lie?
Dean you are really funny. If only you could see the irony in your comment compared to Mrocks;
I thought Jeremy was meant to be Barry Bones? Now it’s Dean or me?
21 August, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Damn it Dean – you beat me to it!!
21 August, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Forget “Mighty Matt”.
RadP is Monty Python’s Black Knight.
21 August, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Or is this another of your exaggerated, disingenuous and totally irrational claims?
Oh Mrock, you mean exaggerated, disingenuous and totally irrational claims like this comment;
I thought Jeremy was meant to be Barry Bones?
21 August, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Based on the Bolt theory of Graph reading and statistical interpretation the ASX2000 should hit zero in a few months making Australia worth $0 so we wouldnt need to worry about an ETS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialist
sums him up.
21 August, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Bugger! I wrote a quite long response to Rad, but my shitty rural dial up internet cut out and scrapped my post when i pressed send.
“What do you reckon DbD – did you obtain any satisfaction from your interaction with Matt?
Yeah, i loved every minute.
Its like banging your head on a mentally challenged brick wall.
“What did you think of the 60 mins story last Sunday. Did it anger you that they dared to show those that argue AGW is not happening or where you happy to hear their side of the debate?”
I dont ever watch 60 min, Rad. Luckily i can access real journalism, as my ideology doesn’t restrict me to watching commercial television. I am more than happy that people have the freedom to express their views and to believe whatever they want to believe. I have listened to the anti-GW side of the debate, and it has some merit. However, it didnt make me want to throw caution to wind. As i have told you before Rad…Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.
“Now you have just proven that you are an AGW evangelist with that very one statement.”
No, i didnt Rad. You have, however, proved that you either can’t read or dont understand the meaning of the word ‘potentially’ or the meaning of the phrase ‘err on the side of caution’
Maybe if you stopped trying to read between the lines, and actually read what was written you might have more luck.
“Who sounds more like a AGW evangelist?
That would be those that claim that the science is settled on AGW and the debate is over.”
Like Andrew Bolt, for example?
I never said the debate was over. I also didnt mention Flannery or Gore, you did. I said that when dealing with a POTENTIALLY cataclysmic event we would be better off ERRING ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION. Get it that time round, Boltard? Andrew Bolt on the other hand, has repeatedly claimed that AGW is not happening, and by your own argument anyone who says the debate is over is a climate change evangelist therefore not to be trusted.
Keep the faith, Rad.
21 August, 2008 at 2:14 pm
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/
More interesting info for Rad to read.
21 August, 2008 at 2:19 pm
More on denialist claims that arctic sea ice is increasing and the planet is cooling.
Hope you are keeping up with your reading Rad.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/sea-ice-hyperbole/
21 August, 2008 at 2:24 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/10/climatechange.arctic
Maybe you could ask the Bolta about this “rocket man” Rad.
21 August, 2008 at 2:31 pm
john51 – what do you think about barry brooks ‘brave new climate’? it has a new post about rad’s 60 minutes show.
http://bravenewclimate.com/
21 August, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Oh Mrock, you mean exaggerated, disingenuous and totally irrational claims like this comment;
I know that Ant’s convinced Rad isn’t Matt – but comments like this leave me almost certain that he is. I wonder if Matt realises that his retort doesn’t actually make any sense?
21 August, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Not to mention Rad’s newfound ‘Mrock’ and the ole Matt persona’s ridiculously overused ‘Krudd’.
21 August, 2008 at 3:14 pm
I’m at home recovering from the winter flu and wondering: Battle with a Bonehead; or, Admire the lady’s high platform diving (purely from an interest in the sport itself…you understand!).
Tough choice…not.
21 August, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Confessions- thanks for that link, it is an interesting read. I am disgusted with 60 mins. I don’t usually watch it but weakened this time, thinking they would be doing something really responsible but got David “rocket man” Evans.
Unfortunately, Rudd stuffed things up a bit. He seemed to be unprepared on the topic which was a bit of a surprise.
21 August, 2008 at 7:28 pm
i didn’t watch 60 minutes, never do. but reading the transcript seemed rudd was underprepared and a bit unsure how to pitch. he seemed to be trying to speak for the science when he should of just said that “the latest scientific advice presented to the govt” etc etc. didn’t bolt love hooking into rudds mistakes though? rudd really riles our andy.
22 August, 2008 at 11:06 am
Rad Pipper – 21 August, 2008 at 11:17 am
“Who sounds more like a AGW evangelist?
That would be those that claim that the science is settled on AGW and the debate is over.”
Andrew Bolt – Friday, August 22, 08 (12:10 am)
“But never mind what the temperature gauges say. The Rudd Government is pressing on with its mad emissions trading scheme to stop a warming that stopped a decade ago”
Andrew Bolt is a climate change evangelist Rad.
22 August, 2008 at 11:59 am
Andrew Bolt – Friday, August 22, 08 (12:10 am)
“But never mind what the temperature gauges say. The Rudd Government is pressing on with its mad emissions trading scheme to stop a warming that stopped a decade ago”
Andrew Bolt is a climate change evangelist Rad
You are being dishonest DBD. You have oh so conveniently left out the context of what Bolt was referring to.
But never mind what the temperature gauges say. The Rudd Government is pressing on with its mad emissions trading scheme to stop a warming that stopped a decade ago
Still missing from the BCA position is any recognition of the fact the world may have stopped warming, or that it’s mad in any event for Australia to lead the world on making sacrifices in growth and jobs when nothing we do will possibly cut the temperature
Bolt is making a reference to the fact that global temperatures have flat lined since 1998. that is what Bolt is referring too when he says But never mind what the temperature gauges say</i<.
He is saying that the Rudd government is deliberately ignoring this oh so inconvenient truth.
22 August, 2008 at 12:09 pm
BTW DBD You are not a climate change sceptic, because if you were you would acknowledge that any climate change policy made by the government should take into account all scientific information, including science which disputes that CO2 is responsible for climate change.
Bolt rightly points out that Rudd is ignoring the scientific data that the planet has not warmed since 1998.
22 August, 2008 at 12:18 pm
There’s no cure for self-delusion. Sad.
22 August, 2008 at 12:23 pm
There’s no cure for self-delusion. Sad.
That’s not very nice Dean. I know that DbD is kidding himself when he claims to be a climate change sceptic, but to say that he is self-delusional is a bit cruel.
22 August, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Such wit and cleverness, RadP.
Yet, the irony is, that even to make a lame joke you have to misrepresent me.
22 August, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Yet, the irony is, that even to make a lame joke you have to misrepresent me
I’m sorry dean. I am just having way too much fun making fun of the religious zealots like yourself and DbD. I should stoping making fun of those that base their opinions beep within faith based ideology.
22 August, 2008 at 1:03 pm
22 August, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I know Rad doesn’t read through this stuff but its here for others if they want too.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
22 August, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Andrew Bolt – Thursday, July 24, 2008 at 07:15am
“In the hysteria to “save” Earth from a warming that’s actually halted, we ignore a true and growing threat to children.”
Andrew Bolt – Tuesday, August 19, 08 (03:54 pm)
“No wonder the cash-hungry NSW Government loves the the Great Global Warming Scare. What a wonderful excuse to raise a lazy few hundred million with a new green tax…No change in the world’s temperature for a decade, but already the Government has changed the way it charges extra taxes. Great scam. ”
It is obvious that Andrew has made up his mind on the subject of AGW and he doesnt believe it exists. It is a scam. He is very clear on this point.
Please explain how the quotes i have provided demonstrate Andrew Bolts open mindedness and willingness to consider both sides of the AGW debate.
Andrew Bolt is a climate change evangelist Rad
22 August, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Andrew Bolt is a climate change evangelist Rad
Do you realise how ridiculous your assumption is DbD?! Equating climate change scepticism to religion is like saying that being an Atheist is a religion.
Being a climate change sceptic is sticking with the status quo until there is undisputable scientific evidence that proves that climate change is caused by CO2. there is no faith in that.
The faith is being put in IPCC climate models about AGW that have no scientific evidence to prove that what they say will happen. That is faith based and as such is Climate Change evangelism. Being an AGW sceptic is like being an Atheist. Until the evidence is conclusive, you will not put your faith in the computer models.
So Andrew Bolt is a climate sceptic.
22 August, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Matt – why did you change your posting name from Marc to Rad?
Were you embarrassed about the posts you submitted under the name Marc or is there some other reason that you decided to change your identity?
22 August, 2008 at 2:12 pm
AH but Rad, Andrew Bolt regularly accuses any one who DOES believe that climate change exists of being an climate change evangelist or fanatic. His regular attacks on Flannery demonstarate this quite nicely.
If claiming unequivocally that climate change DOES exist is climate evangelism, then surely, as the debate still rages and there is dispute in the scientific community over the causes of GW, claiming unequivocally that GW does NOT exist is equally the behaviour of a climate change evangelist or fanatic.
I have not once said that i am convinced GW is happening. But being a cautious fellow, i prefer to err on the side of caution and plan for the worst, while hoping for the best.
Andrew Bolt, on the other hand has repeatedly made it very clear that he has made up his mind about climate change, and that he doesn’t believe it is happening.
Therefore by Andrews own logic he is a climate change evangelist.
22 August, 2008 at 2:26 pm
DbD, RadP has now admitted he’s a troll:
I am just having way too much fun making fun of the religious zealots like yourself and DbD
He’s had his butt whipped and made a fool of himself, yet he’s still here pretending he’s winning.
The self-deluded cannot be reasoned with. You have to be content with exposing their idiocy for other to see – he cannot.
RadP just has to live with the cognitive dissonance that he votes for a political party with a policy that he says will wreck the economy – yet he voted for them because they are good economic managers. How can you argue with someone like that?
22 August, 2008 at 2:32 pm
DbD – your logic is impeccable. If belief in something before it has been proven makes your argument ‘faith based’, then disbelief in the argument before it has been disproven must, by definition, be equally faith based. The conclusion is absolutely valid, and cannot be logically refuted.
But you know that Matt will refuse to accept it, and will do so by vomiting several sentences of total gibberish, don’t you?
22 August, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Mondo – spot on. deflect the argument somewhere else or not post at all and try again next week.
22 August, 2008 at 3:39 pm
RadP just has to live with the cognitive dissonance that he votes for a political party with a policy that he says will wreck the economy – yet he voted for them because they are good economic managers. How can you argue with someone like that?
You really did hoist Matt on his own petard with that one Dean. Lovely work.
22 August, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Rad (who thinks David Evans calling himself a rocket scientist is OK), you need to read more of the IPCC report than just the intro.
22 August, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Maybe Rad hasn’t even read the intro!
22 August, 2008 at 9:31 pm
“RadP just has to live with the cognitive dissonance that he votes for a political party with a policy that he says will wreck the economy – yet he voted for them because they are good economic managers. How can you argue with someone like that?”
Sweet.
23 August, 2008 at 9:43 am
Holy shit. Andrew Bolt just did some journalism!
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_wrong_person_punished/
I am very interested to see what the Boltites make of this one.
23 August, 2008 at 11:09 am
And here’s a typical comment from the anti-multiculturalists (i.e. anti-whoever-I-don’t-think-can-become-an-australian-as-I-see-the-stereotype)
While not sanctioning what is reported as being unprovoked violence – this is yet another example of successful Liberal Party immigration policies – supported by the ALP.
The deliberate creation of ethnic divisions in society as part of multiculturalism, and the deliberate policy by governments to create ghettoes and ruin the social fabric , inevitably results in problems.
This is just one, of what I suspect will be an increasing number, of social clashes – primalriy because the law is inconsistent (people are no longer equal under the law – but only to the extent their ethnicity determines) and too touchy feely.
Sow the seeds of destruction, and then reap it.
At least he/she identifies that he/she is in the minority and that no political party of significance supports their…let’s call it what it is – racism and stupidity.
The former is obvious, the latter is perhaps not so. Let’s get this straight: you can’t tell someone to come here and welcome; but you must unlearn everything you’ve grown up with and act exactly like we want you to.
No government I’ve seen manufactures ethnic divisions and ghettoes.
We have laws – abide by these and that’s all that’s necessary. No other authoritarian, people-moulding, pseudo-nationalism is required.
And don’t tell us you’re all for individual freedoms when all you stand for is telling people where and how to live.
24 August, 2008 at 10:28 am
Here’s the refutation that was always going to come in relation to Bolt’s celebration of a Monckton smear of DeSmogBlog (Richard Littlemore):
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/monckton_and_bolt_defame_john.php#more
Of course, Bolt won’t acknowledge it or address it – he’s tried to in the past with Deltoid’s refutations of his rubbish* but, naturally, the only thing he is capable of doing is smearing the critic.
But, in these tit-for-tat blog battles, how does the layperson actually judge who is right?
Well, unless you’re a conspiracy theorist, you are forced to use your common sense and realise that, if someone really was able to convincingly and rigourously show that AGW was not a threat or was unmitigable, don’t you think there’d be a rush to jump off the wagon; do you really think that politicians want to have to deal with this?
* See next post for link.
24 August, 2008 at 10:30 am
Part of Bolt’s record of shame:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/politics/bolt/
24 August, 2008 at 12:44 pm
“But, in these tit-for-tat blog battles, how does the layperson actually judge who is right?”
that in essence is what bolt relys on, that his followers are only lay people who are easily swayed by a graph in front of them with andy highlighting what he wants them to look at: temp over 10 years never mind 150 yrs, ice cover 2008 compared with 2007 (1 year only!), actual sea level rises lower than projected therefore no sea rises.
there are some good blogs out there that counter bolt’s alarmism and distortions, but sadly your average news ltd reader would never give them the time of day.
Comments are closed.