By Ant Rogenous
Tim Blair today disputes Philip Adams’ assertion that Malcolm Turnbull is the federal opposition’s best bet for leader, and that the Liberal Party would do well “to attack Labor from the left, as British conservatives are learning to do with new-style leaders such as David Cameron and Boris Johnson”.
Ever the climate-change opportunist, he counters Adams’ argument on environmental grounds, claiming Cameron’s rise in popularity follows his “shift away from greenism”. He also cites a couple of Johnson’s “about-faces” on environmental issues.
Tim concludes with the following:
Australian conservatives tried to neutralise global warming as an issue last year by making happy sounds about carbon trading and such. They lost the election anyway, and now find themselves tied to various warmster words. They should cut loose and declare themselves the party that will save the jobs Rudd would destroy.
Malcolm Turnbull doesn’t seem like the man for the job.
Tim Blair isn’t the only high-profile NewsLtd blogger arguing along these lines (and we’ll be awarding no boxes of cigars for guessing which other outspoken, fiercely independent thinker is nodding furiously in agreement), but his advice for the Liberals warrants some analysis.
It seems to me madness to suggest there are enough votes in climate-change denialism to get the Liberals across the line in a forthcoming election, irrespective of who leads the party and notwithstanding the jobs Tim alleges will be “destroyed” as a result of the Rudd government’s environmental policies.
Tim appears already to have forgotten that John Howard’s reticence to acknowledge the electorate’s concerns — or make “happy noises” — about climate change was one of the key contributors to his government’s resounding defeat at the 2007 ballot.
Can this tide of pubic opinion have changed so dramatically so soon? Could it do so before the next election, or even the one after that? I wouldn’t have thought so.
Tim Blair’s and Andrew Bolt’s daily pronouncements that the scientific proof is mounting against the thesis of anthropogenic climate change are, as we’ve argued at this site, often little more than bluffs and white lies delivered to a gaggle of sycophants eager to gobble them up.
It goes without saying that Tim’s and Andrew’s regular commenters are not representative of Australian society as a whole (to be fair, neither are ours), and that these two bloggers wield far less influence than they or their employer would like to believe, preaching as they do to the largely converted.
So what is the prevalent mood in Australia about the challenges we face in dealing with climate change — whether the problem is real or imagined, anthropogenic or natural, trivial or critical? And seeing that the debate is now utterly politicised, what shade of government would be best equipped to tackle such issues?
Furthermore, is Tim’s advice to the opposition indicative of another form of denialism — i.e. an unwillingness to acknowledge that Australian attitudes moved well beyond the Howard government’s right-wing ideology in the latter part of its incumbency, and that the last thing that will bring the Liberal party back into power is a sudden, uncompromising return to its thoroughly repudiated (electorally speaking) conservatism?
Love to hear your thoughts.
686 Comments
26 August, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Tim Blair’s and Andrew Bolt’s daily pronouncements that the scientific proof is mounting against the thesis of anthropogenic climate change are, as we’ve argued at this site, often little more than bluffs and white lies delivered to a gaggle of sycophants eager to gobble them up.
Yet he and Bolt’s recent advice to the Libs strongly suggest that they’ve both started believing their own bullshit. Is there a psychological term for someone who mainly references themself when constructing an argument in support of their personal views? Other than ‘narcissist’ I mean.
So what is the prevalent mood in Australia about the challenges we face in dealing with climate change — whether the problem is real or imagined, anthropogenic or natural, trivial or critical?
Can’t speak for Australia’s mood, but my personal view is that we need to wait a little longer before doing anything too drastic. The long term maps all show an upwards trend but the weather over recent years does tend to beg the question of whether that trend will continue. We should know the answer to that within 5 years.
what shade of government would be best equipped to tackle such issues
Clearly Labor. The Greens and the Libs are both welded to their ends of the ideological spectrum.
26 August, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Hey, I resemble that remark!
Good job, Ant. Blair is bound to perceive everything through his anti-AGW myopia, but Adams’s argument has some merit – not that I expect the Libs to take his advice. Rudd’s Government is establishing some pretty strong social conservative credentials (e.g., this week’s plan to cut welfare for parents who can’t get their kids to behave), and could easily be outflanked on the left on social issues while holding to Liberal Party economic policies.
26 August, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Is there a psychological term for someone who mainly references themself when constructing an argument in support of their personal views?
Yes: leonbertrandosis.
26 August, 2008 at 3:31 pm
tim would do well to recall that recent newspoll showing something like 3% of respondents did not believe human activity contributes to global warming. and while many may not be sure exactly what is causing global warming, most people accept that it is best to err on the side of caution than to risk more than just our economy by doing nothing. the only thing the denialists have left now is alarmism over the merits of the science, personal attacks and ridicule on scientists or journalists who argue in favour of agw, or the jobs and the economy aspect, neither of which has been conclusively proven to go to the dogs if australia acts on carbon emissions.
tim’s ‘let them eat cake’ statement to the murray darling farmers on insiders when he said he could live with evironmental devastation says it all really.
26 August, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I don’t think you’ll ever see B1 or B2 attack Labor from “the Left”.
If you give nothing else to Rudd, you have to concede that he has stuck to his election promises (the real ones, not the strawman ones – petrol prices, grocery prices, etc) – as evidenced by the current attacks from the Unions. This has made him somewhat protected from attacks from “the Right”.
The key thing with the ETS is to have the infrastructure/nuts & bolts in place to make it work and then adjust the parameters as/if circumstances change. That would have been Howard’s thinking all along – their policy was to set the intial cap sometime in 2008 – which I suspect would have been very conservative (i.e. high cap and low commitment). At least they could say they had done something. Labor’s thinking is porbably similar. If some of the worst case scenarios start to occur then it becomes a matter of reducing the cap.
26 August, 2008 at 4:13 pm
AGW is little more than bluffs and white lies delivered to a gaggle of sycophants eager to gobble them up.
26 August, 2008 at 4:18 pm
How long is the troll allowed to last?
26 August, 2008 at 4:20 pm
And his widdle wuver Matt?
26 August, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Fixed your sentence, Husky.
P.S. If the accumulation of published work reviewed and cited by the IPCC actually, not to mention the direct public statements made by many climate scientists, was fraudulent, I think that would qualify as more than a white lie. But it’s not, so the point is moot.
26 August, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I wonder what ‘husky’s credentials are that enable him to so definitively conclulde that AGW is not happening?
I also wonder whether people like Husky are even aware of the distinction between opinion and fact. I’m thinking probably not . . .
26 August, 2008 at 4:32 pm
You fail to understand the point of Bolt and to a lesser extent Blair: they argue things from the right side of a debate seeking to shift the centre towards them. Of course they know where the centre is on issue like climate change they just don’t agree with it.
Much of Bolt’s writing – Blair is a buffoon largely – seeks to change what and how conservatives act. His support for the Liberal party is pragmatic rather than absolute and is subservient to his greater support for his particular right wing view of the world.
Most conservatives do not think like him but what he wants is people to think they do and that, more importantly, his views represent the centre.
I should add that Adams conducts himself similarly in this debate, wanting to move the argument to the left by having the conservatives try and out left the historically left party. I am sure he would like that and it ain’t going to happen!
26 August, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Hi
That was a really thoughtful, and well put together article.
I post at AB’s blog at times, and usually get howled down with cries of “moron”, “cave dweller”, “leftoid moonbat” or “hair shirt wearer” when I mention that all science aside and regardless of “average world temps” and their associated graphs, most people still believe what they see.
Seems to me that most people I speak to agree that our own little patch is warming. Not horrifically, or shockingly suddenly, but the winters are warmer and the summers are longer (not to mention the prolonged drought).
Sure there are still cold days, maybe even unseasonally cold, but on the whole winter seems to be milder and shorter than 5, 10 or 20 years ago.
Seems to me that AB, TB and their followers are so hung up on graphs and linking to each other and themselves, that they forget to look out the window.
Oh well, no matter what I say, they’ll all continue to have an each way bet. (kinda amusing when that’s what they accuse AGW believers of)
The world’s not actually warming….it’s stable, no wait it’s actually cooling, no wait it could be warming….but it’s natural etc etc.
26 August, 2008 at 5:07 pm
You fail to understand the point of Bolt and to a lesser extent Blair: they argue things from the right side of a debate seeking to shift the centre towards them.
Hi Gert – thanks for commenting here without succumbing to the urge to troll. We get so few commentators from the Right who aren’t simply here to disrupt discussion.
Re your comment above – I’m not sure that you’re correct. Most here do understand that Bolt/Blair are arguing a slanted right-wing perspective. The purpose of this site is not to mindlessly take the opposite view, but to expose the sleight-of-hand that B1 and B2 use to disguise what is quite obviously extremely biased commentary.
Its the Boltheads who really need reminding of the point you’ve made, i.e. that Bolt/Blair are engaging in polemic argument rather than open inquiry. So many of the rusted ons at Bolt’s site – and many of those who drag themselves over here – appear to be entirely unaware that Bolt/Blair are only presenting one side of the argument.
26 August, 2008 at 5:19 pm
…Bolt/Blair are only presenting one side of the argument.
And a perfect example Mondo is Bolt’s
Rudd’s mate-ocracy crap today.
Never saw him do a ‘Howard’s mate-ocracy’ or a ‘PeterReith’s canIgetajobsellingmilitaryhardware-ocracy’.
26 August, 2008 at 5:30 pm
You’re being too forensic about it. The reality is Howard was popular because low interest rates and easy credit drove asset prices upwards, and the ensuing cycle was not only relaxed and confortable, but took some years to unwind. The punters turned on Howard because they screwed o interest rates and asset prices, and the middle classes turned on Howard becase they didn’t want their kids working for Maccas at $5 an hour while paying $100k to study beancounting at uni. Simple really. We could have had the proverbial drover’s dog rather than the christian democrat. Shame really…
26 August, 2008 at 5:40 pm
“His support for the Liberal party is pragmatic rather than absolute and is subservient to his greater support for his particular right wing view of the world.”
not sure that’s right. bolt never misses an opportunity to cast costello as the saviour of the libs at every opportunity. blair on the other hand has not offered an opinion on who he thinks should be leader if turnbull (and presmably neslon) are not. if bolts support was mere pragmatism he’d be getting behind nelson who surely is the most pragmatic choice as leader at the moment.
26 August, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Agreed, Idladiv, and that one actually prompted me to comment on Bolt’s blog. In trying to suggest that Rudd has looked after a mate by appointing him secretary to the G-G, he ignored a couple of key points:
(i) The guy he is replacing worked in PM Howard’s department before becoming secretary to Hollingworth (and staying on through Jeffery). At the very least, this highlights a double standard in Bolt’s thinking.
(ii) There is a pretty solid argument for merit – the “mate” of Rudd’s was an advisor to Howard and his most recent job has been heading the protocol section of DFAT – pretty suitable experience for guiding the G-G through her activities.
26 August, 2008 at 5:51 pm
And a perfect example Mondo is Bolt’s Rudd’s mate-ocracy crap today.
Absolutely. The problem is that the Boltards don’t realise that Bolt is spoon feeding them his worldview, and so they walk away thinking that this sort of nepotism is unique to Labor. That’s the real danger of utterly shameless propogandists like Bolt – the idiots who don’t realise what’s being done to them.
26 August, 2008 at 6:30 pm
“Can this tide of pubic opinion have changed so dramatically so soon? Could it do so before the next election, or even the one after that? I wouldn’t have thought so.”
This tide of pubic opinion worries me. Dickheads share their opinions very closely with the pubic.
26 August, 2008 at 6:46 pm
well said gert i was going to write something similar but you did it first.
26 August, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Confessions the example you raise I suggest supports rather than disproves my thesis.
Bolt wants the Liberal party (as opposed to Labor) to govern – this is his pragmatic position – but I would argue that greater is his desire that the right wing of the Liberal party govern as opposed to the centerist or left wing part of the Liberal party. (Imagine his disquiet if Turnbull led the Liberals and as part of a first term agenda suggested an ETS, and a republic. I suspect he’d prefer Rudd.)
Bolt has, contrary to what you say, supported Nelson at times, particularly when Nelson seemed to argue that the Liberals should take a more sceptical view on climate change and an ETS. His support for Nelson is strongest when the choice is between Nelson and Turnbull. Only the deluded, however, could see Nelson, first, as a right winger – he is an opportunist who needed and now relies on the vote of the right wing of the Liberal to survive – and, secondly, as electable as prime minister. Costello, in contrast, is a right winger and electable as prime minister. Hence, Bolt’s messianic views on Costello.
Mondo Rock, I appreciate this site’s premise is that Bolt and Blair have a right wing view. I don’t disagree with the premise. The point I was trying to make but obviously not clearly is that Bolt’s (not so much Blair’s) shtick, if you like, is to state right wing views and portray them as mainstream and the corollary is to portray left wing views as extreme and not mainstream. They seek to align peoples’ views to their own
One of their main thrust is that the public is now more sceptical about climate change – the very thing they have argued for – so I was surprised that the author of the initial post seems to take on this propaganda by asking what is the prevalent view on climate change.
I
26 August, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Considering how shonky Blair’s and, in particular Bolt’s, so-called “counter arguments” against global warming evidence are based on ignoring 99% of the actual data and focussing on the 1% that happens to support their wierd views, it would be safe to say that the bloggers of these sites aren’t particularly bright. Maybe one day these denialists will figure it out and join the rest of us in the 21st century.
26 August, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Australian conservatives tried to neutralise global warming as an issue last year by making happy sounds about carbon trading and such. They lost the election anyway, and now find themselves tied to various warmster words. They should cut loose and declare themselves the party that will save the jobs Rudd would destroy.
Global Warming Skeptic is another word for stoopid. “Happy sounds”, “cut loose” and “warmster words” also sound stupid. Nearly everybody believes global Warming is a threat that has to be decreased. It is more intelligent to approach excess CO2 and pollutants as a threat to society because most people believe it. People want/like a cleaner environment. If the Liberals went against the environment they would look like ignorant monkeys – Jobs isn’t a good enough answer nowadays.
Malcolm Turnbull doesn’t seem like the man for the job.
According to the B’s – The only man good enough for the job is and forever will be Little Johnnie. (Unless Andy ran 4 PM!!!) Quick run up the Aussie flag and sound the bugle while I am still pondering the greatness of Little Johnnie.
26 August, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I know. It’s all so shocking.
Boooo Blair.
Boooo Bolt.
All better now.
26 August, 2008 at 8:40 pm
I have studied environmental law and am a firm believer in the precautionary principle. Also I can see real benefits in renewables even if AGW is unfounded. To me that pretty much ends the debate then and there.
What irks me about dickheads like bolt is that they never prove their statements. He always asserts that AGW policies will result in untold destruction to our economy. All I want to know is how, but he never ever proves this. It is much the same with his ’stolen gen’ crap. I posted on his blog asking him to prove there was a truly ’saved’ generation he is always saying exists, but I was met with silence.
26 August, 2008 at 8:54 pm
He doesn’t explain it, Pablo, because it is obvious. Over-tax industry in a global environment where other markets are less restrictive and industry moves offshore to greener pastures. It’s very simple.
(Of course, I’m not addressing the issue of AGW, just your desire to know why carbon offsets might harm the economy).
26 August, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Interesting article from WA Today.
http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/who-is-behind-climate-change-deniers-20080802-3ou6.html
26 August, 2008 at 10:25 pm
“I posted on his blog asking him to prove there was a truly ’saved’ generation he is always saying exists, but I was met with silence.”
And how exactly does this puerile demand for proof of a “saved generation” help your cause? The term “stolen generation” is an oft-used and accepted part of the Australian vernacular. I’ve said before on this site that I find Bolt’s “Name Ten, Robert” argument simplistic and silly. Amazingly, your request trumps Bolt’s in both its wise-ass simplicity and schoolground shallowness. I’ve never heard Bolt use the phrase “saved generation.” Saved in individual cases, yes. But Bolt’s beginning point is to deny that the word ‘generations’ should apply and I agree. It is a needlessly inflammatory term, throwing a semantic lifeline to the Bolts of this world.
The real problem of this debate is not solved in discussing the proving of “stolen generations” or “saved generations.” The problem lies in Bolt’s unswerving belief that children were not stolen but saved. And Manne’s unshakeable belief that these same children were stolen. They will never agree. It has become a debate of semantics. And that is what Bolt wanted. Smugly asking him to prove a saved generation lowers yourself to Bolt’s level on this complex issue.
26 August, 2008 at 10:46 pm
daics he has titled a more then one blog entries as “another member of the saved generation”.
and pablo i totally agree. why will it damage our economy? they never say. but i do think going into this half arsed may be damaging. if we get in there first and try to be world leaders in “new” economies then we could actually derive great benefit from the changes.
i really hope them and their sort are still alive in 50 years time. i wonder how they’ll defend their current position.
and another thing i just watched a bit of “thank you for smoking” again. the arguments used by the smoking lobby is exactly the same as what is now dispensed by the anti agw lobby.
and i have been wondering what do people like bolt and co have that makes them so vehement about their position. surely they’re not all on the parole from big oil. well it occurred to me that they’re probably not but are acting not like big tobacco but like the addicts defending their favourite product.
27 August, 2008 at 8:35 am
Global Warming Skeptic is another word for stoopid. “Happy sounds”, “cut loose” and “warmster words” also sound stupid.
Now that would have to be one of the biggest, most unscientific statements I have ever heard.
Scepticism in science is not stupid, scepticism in science is one of the more important aspects. Scepticism was a major contributing factor in the dawn of the age of reason. The principle of falsification is one of the guiding aspects of science and without it, we would never advance in science.
Can’t speak for Australia’s mood, but my personal view is that we need to wait a little longer before doing anything too drastic.
Doen’t this go against ALP ETS policy and sit better with Lib policy of waiting until 2012?
The long term maps all show an upwards trend but the weather over recent years does tend to beg the question of whether that trend will continue. We should know the answer to that within 5 years
So are you saying that if the current 10 year period of no warming continues for another 6 years, then the concept that CO2 is causing climate change becomes weak?
Tim appears already to have forgotten that John Howard’s reticence to acknowledge the electorate’s concerns — or make “happy noises” — about climate change was one of the key contributors to his government’s resounding defeat at the 2007 ballot
I think that you will find that the issues that caused Howard’s downfall were not climate change. The issues were more Work Choices and interest rates. Issues that matter more to the “Working Families” based in the mortgage belts of our major cities.
27 August, 2008 at 9:36 am
The principle of falsification is one of the guiding aspects of science and without it, we would never advance in science.
The principle of being stubborn fools is one of the guiding aspects of neocons and without them, we would ever so advance in science and sustainable environmental management.
Hey Matt,
Let’s play a hypothetical.
What say a story came out along the lines of:
McCain threats racist rantings: police
Alleged threats against Republican presidential candidate Senator McCain were described today as “racist rantings” made under the influence of drugs.
“The threats involved a group of meth heads, methamphetamine users, abusers, all of whom were impaired at the time.”
Tell me, what do you think your hero Bolt would come out with?
27 August, 2008 at 9:59 am
The point I was trying to make but obviously not clearly is that Bolt’s (not so much Blair’s) shtick, if you like, is to state right wing views and portray them as mainstream and the corollary is to portray left wing views as extreme and not mainstream.
Nah Gert – you made the point well enough, I just failed to appreciate it at the time. Reading it again today I can see exactly what you were saying and exactly how I misinterpreted you.
Idlaviv – don’t do it!! If you keep replying to Matt he will flood this thread with his inanities.
27 August, 2008 at 9:59 am
“The principle of falsification is one of the guiding aspects of science and without it, we would never advance in science.”
Comedy Gold – RadP will out looking for bigfoot in order to ‘advance science’ only to come home with a frozen gorilla suit.
27 August, 2008 at 10:01 am
The principle of being stubborn fools is one of the guiding aspects of neocons and without them, we would ever so advance in science and sustainable environmental management
Scepticism is not stubbornness.
I just find it interesting that AGW believers try very hard to make scepticism a bad thing when applied to AGW. No where in science has scepticism ever been treated as a bad thing.
Just take the comment that I highlighted;
Global Warming Skeptic is another word for stoopid. “Happy sounds”, “cut loose” and “warmster words” also sound stupid
Global warming scepticism is not stupid. In fact it is the opposite. It is smart because what scepticism does is it encourages us to question and research what is being claimed.
Tell me, what do you think your hero Bolt would come out with
First point – He is not my hero.
Second point – I have no idea what Bolt will post on any threats made against McCain. But you seem to know so what do you think he will say?
27 August, 2008 at 10:07 am
Comedy Gold – RadP will out looking for bigfoot in order to ‘advance science’ only to come home with a frozen gorilla suit
Of course you would say that. So given your analogy, I suspect that you would call someone who was sceptical of Big foot a “Big Foot” denialist.
27 August, 2008 at 11:24 am
In relation to Insight, Andy asks:
But I’m sure SBS has invited at least one panellist who might point out the folly of Australia singlehandedly trying to “stop” a global warming that seems to have stopped already, and which probably wouldn’t harm us anyway?
Just one? No?
Yes, they did. Did you mean to ask “Did they invite any head-in-the-sand denialists”? Not sure.
Notice Andy’s wording?
“Singlehandedly” – a blatant lie.
“Seems to have stopped”; “probably wouldn’t harm us” – You seem so sure, Andy.
Can we attach your testicles to a large electric source (generated from renewables), that triggers if/when: a) Global temp exceeds the 1998 value; b) Arctic ice falls to lower coverage than 2007?
27 August, 2008 at 11:31 am
But I’m sure SBS has invited at least one panellist who might point out the folly of Australia singlehandedly trying to “stop” a global warming that seems to have stopped already, and which probably wouldn’t harm us anyway?
Just one? No?
Yes, they did. Did you mean to ask “Did they invite any head-in-the-sand denialists”? Not sure.
Notice Andy’s wording?
“Singlehandedly” – a blatant lie
Dean now you have been caught out mis-representing and lying.
Bolt wrote that article before the show aired and he admits this. Bolt was talking “tongue in check” with sarcasms when he said that.
You are trying to make out that he stated it as fact and as such he is telling a lie.
Dean you really are a piece of work, accusing others of doing this then turning around and doing it yourself.
27 August, 2008 at 11:44 am
RadP – can you provide a shred of evidence that Bolt is talking “tongue in check” (sic) or is he meant to be “tongue in cheek”.
Did he email you directly to say it was sarcastic?
27 August, 2008 at 11:58 am
RadP – can you provide a shred of evidence that Bolt is talking “tongue in check” (sic) or is he meant to be “tongue in cheek”.
Oh Please. It is obvious. But for your benefit;
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/sbs_asks_exactly_the_wrong_question/
But I’m sure SBS has invited at least one panellist who might point out the folly of Australia singlehandedly trying to “stop” a global warming that seems to have stopped already, and which probably wouldn’t harm us anyway?
Just one? No?
Notice how he says I’m sure and who might. Followed by Just one? No?.
It is obvious that he is being sarcastic and taking the piss out of the show.
It is obvious that he has not seen the show because he clearly posts when the show airs and it is an hour after he posted this.
Give all this it is extremely deceptive to claim that bolt was blatantly lying when it is more than obvious that he hasn’t seen the show and he is being sarcastic.
I find it interesting that Dean is the first to scream and accuse that others are lying, mis-representing others and being deceptive. Here is a clear example of him doing exactly that.
27 August, 2008 at 12:11 pm
RadP – Just to be clear that is your emphasise not Bolt’s. You are misrepresenting what he is trying to communicate. If he wanted the emphasise he would have placed it.
So your comments should say that YOU believe he is being sarcastic rather than HE is. Your last paragraph applies to you as well.
27 August, 2008 at 12:20 pm
RadP – Just to be clear that is your emphasise not Bolt’s. You are misrepresenting what he is trying to communicate. If he wanted the emphasise he would have placed it.
LOL – you can’t be serious DBoP.
DBoP, It is obvious that he is being sarcastic. Did you notice the big question mark and the end of the sentence!
If bolt was making a deceptive statement, then he would not ask it as a question with words like But I’m sure SBS has invited and at least one panellist who might point out .
If you believe what Dean has said, then can you show where Bolt has lied in this post?
27 August, 2008 at 12:36 pm
What sort of reward does Matt expect for consistently, and excruciatingly, dressing up his hero’s mutton?
27 August, 2008 at 12:39 pm
RadP – Did I say Bolt lied? Stop putting up trolling comments and misrepresenting what posters say in here and what Bolt types himself.
I don’t really care what Dean just typed But I do get annoyed that you assume what Bolt has typed and can read his mood.
By the way you forgot a ? instead of the !
If Bolt is being sarcastic, he is crap at it. And RadP ‘for your benefit’ sarcasm is the lowest form of humour.
27 August, 2008 at 12:39 pm
What sort of reward does Matt expect for consistently, and excruciatingly, dressing up his hero’s mutton?
What kind of prize do you get for trying to deflect attention away from Dean’s deception?
27 August, 2008 at 12:43 pm
If Bolt is being sarcastic, he is crap at it. And RadP ‘for your benefit’ sarcasm is the lowest form of humour
Ouch!
Maybe you should tell Jeremy that, given the style he post’s in.
27 August, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Even the Portuguese police could detect that your Mighty Matt.
And Matt…trolls are the lowest forms of life.
27 August, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Even the Portuguese police could detect that your Mighty Matt.
And Matt…trolls are the lowest forms of life.
You just have to love the use of the Mighty Matt card. How many others on this site have been hit with the Mighty matt card?
i suspect it is everyone that does not agree with you.
27 August, 2008 at 12:59 pm
People,
RadP is a proven liar:
http://blairboltwatch.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/backhanded-sympathy/#comment-8590
I suggest that he is ignored.
27 August, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I wonder what Mighty Matt’s parents think of your use of their son’s name?
http://www.mightymatt.net/
27 August, 2008 at 1:01 pm
RadP is a proven liar
dean you have now been proven as a liar. you piece of deception regarding Bolt’s post on SBS is a classic.
27 August, 2008 at 1:17 pm
People PLEASE!
I understand how tempting it is to respond to Matt’s posts, I really do, but surely you realise that pointing out his errors (and they are numerous) will lead to nothing more than further flooding of the post with his inane garbage.
Matt will never admit to his errors, nor will he ever admit to Bolt’s errors. It’s entirely clear that Dean’s accusation about Bolt’s fabrications is correct – Bolt claimed that Australia is “singlehandedly” trying to stop global warming when that is demonstrably a false statement – yet the plain reality of this observation will never find any traction with Matt. He will arbitrarily claim that Bolt was joking or he will simply change the subject and avoid the issue, like he always does.
There is only one solution to the re-infestation of this site by Mighty Matt and we all know what it is. Those of you who continue to engage with the troll are subjecting the rest of us to his painfully stupid and deliberately bad-faith rantings.
27 August, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Good point Mondo.
You can count on me…
27 August, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Oh, and Mods – whenever you’re ready to realise the truth that Mighty Matt is back and continuing his deliberate obstruction of free-flowing commentary at this site that’d be just grand.
27 August, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Oh, and Mods – whenever you’re ready to realise the truth that Mighty Matt is back and continuing his deliberate obstruction of free-flowing commentary at this site that’d be just grand
Will you apologise Mrock when it is proven that I am not your mythical mighty matt?
27 August, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Mondo, as much as I’d love to see the comments here completely free of idiocy, I don’t think Rad Pipper has done enough to warrant being placed on moderation.
We’re very reluctant to take away people’s ability to post freely and have only placed restrictions on people who comment here solely to abuse or indulge in personal disputes with other commenters, or people whose contributions are constantly off topic and composed with the intention of inflaming tempers rather than debate.
Rad Pipper makes his facile attempts to argue against our posts and defend B1 and B2, which is everyone’s right, then refuses to concede an argument when challenged, no matter how many times he’s been shown to be wrong. And we all know this is exactly what he’ll do.
You nailed it in your second-to-last comment — clearly, the answer is to ignore his posts in the first place, knowing, as we do, exactly where discussion with him will lead.
DeanL has shown him to be a liar; you and Idlaviv have repeatedly smashed his arguments to pieces — and the evidence of his embarrassing, bad-faith conduct is in just about every thread, there for all to see.
My suggestion is just to leave it at that, and take up debate with the more intelligent dissenting commenters like Daics.
27 August, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Hmmmm . . . . well if that’s the only way then I guess that’s what I’ll be doing.
For the record, however, my prediction is that this infestation will continue until a moderator has to step in. Hope I’m proved wrong though.
27 August, 2008 at 1:56 pm
“People PLEASE!
I understand how tempting it is to respond to Matt’s posts, I really do, but surely you realise that pointing out his errors (and they are numerous) will lead to nothing more than further flooding of the post with his inane garbage.”
which is why i have been ignoring him and his silly diatribes for ages now. you are right. enough is enough.
27 August, 2008 at 2:00 pm
getting back to topic – I personally believe that there is an opportunity available to be a world leader in new technology addressing climate change issues. Why only see problems and potential damage when there are opportunities to create and develop?
The economy will not fold like a stack of cards as per the neo con scremongering. What needs to be done is to inroduce the ETS and use the dividends to fund future development in new technologies.
The issue that the Rudd government will have to deal with is taking the b-s out of the argument about the ETS and putting it into a simple to understand system so that the public (voters) can grasp the issue.
Blair has a point that if the Labour govt is concentrating on a couple of elements then there is the potential to be blindsided by the opposition.
The follow up is how much do the public ‘trust’ the liberals?
27 August, 2008 at 2:04 pm
While I’m still not convinced Rad Pipper is Mighty Matt, the situation that’s developing is eerily reminiscent of that at Anonymous Lefty, isn’t it — despite everyone’s best efforts to ignore the Matt, he managed to muscle his way into every debate and subsequently derail threads with his nonsense. And in the end Jeremy was left no choice but to do away with him.
I’m hoping that ignoring the problem will do the trick in this case. If everyone does so and Rad Pipper’s comments begin coming across as deliberate attempts to bait other commenters or drag threads down to his own sloganeering comfort zone, then we’ll be in a position to step in on the grounds I mentioned in my last comment.
But while he submits a comment (no matter how irrational) in response to a post and then gets involved in a debate with a handful of people who’ve challenged him simultaneously, I can’t in good conscience claim he’s baiting other people when their participation in the debate has been voluntary.
27 August, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Actually, the Oz Editorial today is quite reasonable on the ETS issue (although it still contained the usual anti-AGW loading).
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24247354-16741,00.html
I notice that Andy is dancing with glee over the demise of Jaspan at The Age. Andy’s building up a nice little karma debt over there…if only there were such a thing. Not that The Age isn’t in need of an overhaul.
27 August, 2008 at 2:09 pm
“Gert
26 August, 2008 at 6:52 pm”
i understand what you are saying but just don’t think it’s as clear cut as you perceive. i do think andy is by nature a libertarian rather than a true conservative or neo-con right-winger (shutting eyes as i type!), and therefore sits more comfortably with the moderate libs. he has many stances that suggest this: gay rights, the primacy of the individual, economic liberalism. i think he would support as leader whoever he thinks would get the libs elected – as it happens many coalition voters want costello as leader, even though his elevation would not be pragmatic at all at this point. i’m also starting to wonder whether his staunch denialism when it comes to climate change has more to do with selling news than any firm belief. he has been owned so many times over his dodgy graph interpretation and had scientists and more savvy readers post at his blog showing his errors. yet he keeps posting and keeps repeating the same stuff that’s been comprehensive disproved. i’m not convinced anybody could be that obtuse or pig-headed unless you were purely revenue-raising. his climate change threads seem to draw a lot of comments, same as his stolen generations posts – another area he’s been owned on as well but keep posting about. again, revenue raising maybe?
27 August, 2008 at 2:14 pm
“The issue that the Rudd government will have to deal with is taking the b-s out of the argument about the ETS and putting it into a simple to understand system so that the public (voters) can grasp the issue.”
absolutely, i have always sensed this was the way: bring the public with you by engaging early and stroking often. softly, softly and leave the alarmist crap to those screeching from the sidelines. didn’t hawkey do just this with the tariff cuts?
27 August, 2008 at 2:23 pm
confessions – bolt will keep posting while he keeps getting hits. The news website advertises that he gets more than 1m hits a month. It is a lot to do with revenue of course, same a shock jock on talkback radio.
In a way a lot of newspaper websites would like to have Bolt on their payroll due to the web traffic he can generate -> more ad revenue.
It just works out that the news website suits his vision at the moment. Remember he once worked as an advisor to the ALP. So he is not adverse to jumping ship depending on his ideals.
It would be hard for him not having his feeders from within the Howard govt anymore.
27 August, 2008 at 2:31 pm
his climate change threads seem to draw a lot of comments, same as his stolen generations posts – another area he’s been owned on as well but keep posting about. again, revenue raising maybe?
And why do you think that he gets so many hits from his posts on climate change?
You will find your answer to this question in that;
It seems to me madness to suggest there are enough votes in climate-change denialism to get the Liberals across the line in a forthcoming election, irrespective of who leads the party and notwithstanding the jobs Tim alleges will be “destroyed” as a result of the Rudd government’s environmental policies
That would be that there is a large portion of the Australian population who identify with Climate change scepticism. Bolt’s views on climate change is shared with a large portion of the Australian population.
If this was not the case then bolt would not have the successful blog that he has today.
27 August, 2008 at 2:37 pm
i do think andy is by nature a libertarian rather than a true conservative or neo-con right-winger
I tend to agree – he’s unquestionably right-wing but his views tend not to be those I would associate with the far right.
It’s the unbelievably dishonest and narcissistic way in which he argues (and the genuinely crazy comments by many of his drooling sychophants) that makes him come across as ‘extreme’.
27 August, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Confessions I think you are unduly cynical and unfair about why Bolt writes what he does.
Sure Bolt bills himself as Australia’s most talked about columnist – never seen any proof for that claim but there was the interesting Morgan poll from 2007 about bias in journalism here http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4195/ where he got some mentions – and writes in a polarising manner to get a reaction, but I reckon his strong views are personally held.
True he’ll do almost anything to win an argument, has memorised Schopenhaur’s The Art of Controversy back to front and thinks that having the last word on something means that you win, but they are the human faults even for most barristers.
You say that Bolt has been “owned” many times. I don’t know what that means but if it is anything like being pegged then I doubt it. If you are saying he has been proved wrong many times then that is sweet but frankly irrelevant: it suggests you don’t understand how to argue or how arguments work and should read Art of Controversy yourself!
27 August, 2008 at 2:47 pm
You will find this interesting. It backs up Bolt’s view that the world has not warmed in 10 years. It goes on to say that there is evidence to suggest that this current period could last another 10-20 years.
Keep in mind that this is coming from a AGW believer.
McCracken believes science should be upfront. ”I believe that we must state firmly that a cooling is possible in the near future, but that the warming would then resume 10-20 years hence,” he said via email. ”It will be very hard to argue for public trust if we say nothing about the possibility, and then try to argue our way out after it happens. Using an Aussie rules analogy, that would be like giving the climate sceptics a free kick 10m in front of goal.”
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/crucial-to-keep-open-mind-in-a-climate-of-change/1255345.aspx
27 August, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Rudi – regarding the claim about bolt – It is on the herald sun website and states “Blog with Australia’s most talked about columnist.”
27 August, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Rudi has a point regarding Bolt’s strong views being personally held.
The guy was prepared to make a right f**kwit of himself in the Borders bookshop, in front of his kid mind you, to fight his imagined good fight.
27 August, 2008 at 3:10 pm
The guy was prepared to make a right f**kwit of himself in the Borders bookshop, in front of his kid mind you, to fight his imagined good fight.
Now I have heard everything. A lefty making the claim that standing up to big business is making a f**kwit of themselves.
All bolt was doing was voicing his protests over being charged a fee for a plastic bag.
27 August, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Dam buster I know where the claim is made but, as I said in my previous post, I have never seen any proof for the claim. It sounds like puffery to me like a chicken producer claiming they have the best loved chooks in Australia. How would you know if it was true unless you knew the sum of all “talks” about Australia’s columnists, and which columnist each talk was about?
27 August, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Rudi and others FYI http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/controversy/
has Schopenhaur’s The Art of Controversy online.
27 August, 2008 at 3:16 pm
How would you know if it was true unless you knew the sum of all “talks” about Australia’s columnists, and which columnist each talk was about?
You have a point Rudi, but I think that the existence of this Blog site adds weight to the evidence that Bolt is one of Australia’s top columnist’s.
If Bolt was not popular, there would not be a need for Boltwatch.
Also, even thought I will be lampooned for saying this, the success of this Blog site rides on the tails of success of Bolt’s success.
27 August, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Rudi – Good point. Bit difficult to measure the amount of “talked” compared to other columnists.
27 August, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Whilst watching ‘March of the Penguins’ the other night, I couldn’t help but wonder if such viewing would be allowed in the Bolt household.
It wouldn’t have been on in Timmeh’s house.
Monster-truckin on Foxtel perhaps.
After all, “Let them eat diesel.”
27 August, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Bolta is a cash for comment words-smith. His principles are governed by his wallet.
OMG Rick. Where is your evidence of this. What you are saying is very defamatory if you don’t have evidence to back it up.
Talk about deceptive misrepresentation if there is no evidence!
27 August, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Idlaviv – I would say that the channel would be on FoxNews and the remote has been thrown away.
27 August, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Congrats to all for not feeding the troll, it will go away eventually if it is not fed …
27 August, 2008 at 3:27 pm
…With the hard disk recorder going.
27 August, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Substantiated analysis of the global temperature and it’s relationship with solar irradiance and other longer-term forcing elements:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
The plot of the total solar irradiance cycle measured by satellite data is illuminating (excuse pun).
If the sun were to remain “stuck” in its present minimum for several decades, as has been suggested (e.g., Independent story) in analogy to the solar Maunder Minimum of the seventeenth century, that negative forcing would be balanced by a 5-year increase of GHGs. Thus, in the current era of rapidly increasing GHGs, such solar variations cannot have a substantial impact on long-term global warming trends. Furthermore, recent sighting of the first sunspot of reversed polarity (reported Jan. 4 by, e.g., SpaceWeather.com and NOAA) signifies that the ~ 4-year period of increasing solar irradiance is about to get underway. …
Based on these considerations, it is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature. These considerations also suggest that, barring the unlikely event of a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next 2-3 years.
Bolt’s chief means of water-muddying is likely to be removed in the near future. Additionally, his testicles would be flaming red should he submit to my suggestion above.
27 August, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Based on these considerations, it is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature.
but 2008 has been. It has been colder. A drop of 0.7 C.
27 August, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Here is the link
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/uah-global-temperature-dives-in-may/
27 August, 2008 at 3:58 pm
“That would be that there is a large portion of the Australian population who identify with Climate change scepticism.”
I would agree, however I believe most sceptics think it wise to err on the side of caution.
“Bolt’s views on climate change is shared with a large portion of the Australian population. ”
I would disagree, recently there was a poll stating that (sorry can’t remember the exact figures) most (60%…??) supported an ETS, admittedly most didn’t really understand it but were erring on the side of caution. Bolt is not a sceptic, he’s made up his mind.
“If this was not the case then bolt would not have the successful blog that he has today.”
This doesn’t mean people agree with him, it just means that people hit his blog, morbid fascination maybe? Andrew Bolt provokes debate, this isn’t a bad thing, maybe I should say that Andrew Bolt knows how to rattle a cage?
27 August, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Andy is a stirrer, pure and simple.
27 August, 2008 at 6:35 pm
rudi
‘owned’ in the sense of being pinged or shown to be incorrect – blogging language i think. as my post says bolt has had scientists post on his blog and more savvy readers point out the errors in interpretation of the various graphs and data he uses to demonstrate ‘cooling’. DeanL who posts here and tobiaz ziegler regular ping (own) bolt over how he misrepresents and distorts climate graphs. it has nothing to do with having the last word (why are so many of his fans hung up on this?), but more about being factual and reporting the data with honesty, whether it supports your opinion or not. this is true skepticism in my view. as for his ‘most read columnist’ claim or however the hun spin it, i saw larvatus prodeo produce their hit count recently and it exceeds bolt’s. i’m told its a regular thing, but can’t confirm cause i only lurk there occaisionally.
27 August, 2008 at 6:40 pm
“Rudi
27 August, 2008 at 3:12 pm”
sorry have just read this. i don’t know where the most-talked-about claim originate from either. news ltd spin i reckon. the way they claim the australian newspaper is the ‘heart of the nation’ or some such crap.
27 August, 2008 at 7:01 pm
if you ever need more evidence of the boltards unwillingness to click on links on andy’s threads look no further than andy’s hat tipping to rudd thread ‘rudd delivers substance – on schools’. the link to rudd’s speech has 13 clicks today and there are 95 comments as at now with more than 13 of them making some judgement on the speech itself. either readers tuned to abc to watch or are just parrotting whatever they’ve read in andy’s words on his post, or just regurjitating the usual krudd nonsense that is effortlessly applied to any post about rudd.
reading for yourself is so last season.
27 August, 2008 at 7:29 pm
John51 You hit the nail on the head, pure and simple.
27 August, 2008 at 8:08 pm
But that is my point exactly left goog. I do not find your assertion obvious or without doubt. Bolt is simply an alarmist trying to rattle my hip pocket nerve. He’ll need to make a bit more of an effort to convince me.
Daics I do not have a ’cause’. I sunk to his level to make a point and show what a dickhead he is, and naturally made myself look like one in the process. That was the whole point. Manne could also be a dickhead, I don’t know or care (this is boltwatch afterall). However Bolt claims that nobody was ‘truly’ stolen and that they were actually saved. He fails to adhere to the standard of proof he expects of Manne and belittles him for.
The substantive ‘complex’ issue, as you put it, is not really of great concern to me. I just like to make Bolt look like a hypocrit.
27 August, 2008 at 8:20 pm
“He fails to adhere to the standard of proof he expects of Manne and belittles him for it”
not to mention failing to adhere to the standard of proof he demands for stolen generation & agw when claiming catherine deveny has bipolar!
27 August, 2008 at 9:42 pm
“Daics I do not have a ’cause’. I sunk to his level to make a point and show what a dickhead he is, and naturally made myself look like one in the process. That was the whole point. ”
Brilliant strategy. Well played.
27 August, 2008 at 9:57 pm
The Lefties show no respect for their intellectual superiors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDGhs_LN7Fk
Love the chant at 2:30 LOL
27 August, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Confessions, they don’t need to actually follow Bolt’s links, their minds are already made up. That’s why a hack like Bolt can get away with being so sloppy. There will always be a bunch of rightard minions who will support his position. Its phenomenal how regularly you can see how a link that Bolt uses to support a position, clearly isn’t what he says it is. I am beginning to think that Bolt himself doesn’t read the full articles he link too. It is an extremelly anti-enlightened and unhealthy community at Bolt’s site.
27 August, 2008 at 10:22 pm
“That would be that there is a large portion of the Australian population who identify with Climate change scepticism. Bolt’s views on climate change is shared with a large portion of the Australian population.”
There is simply no way that Bolt, nor his minions can be classified as sceptics. They may hold onto this word, in case they are proven to have been completely wrong, and have all their immature idiocy on this issue, held up to them, but I couldn’t think of a word that perhaps less describes them. A Sceptic is someone that is sceptical of any particular scientific argument argued to them.
Since Bolt and his idiots have firmly put themselves in one camp, and dream up all sorts of imbecile caricatures about those who they disagree with, they are not sceptics. Sceptic is cop-out word that Bolt can use to fall back upon. In no way does he or the climate-change denialist movement, who are by far the most evangelistic and cult-like in this whole debate, qualify for the use of the word “sceptic”. Anybody who says “climate change” is a myth or a lie directly, or ininuates this by painting that people who think otherwise are idiots, and then call themsleves a “sceptic”, obviously doesnt know how utterly stupid they sound.
27 August, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Chris, it’s a bit rich to lambast one side for dreaming up “imbecile caricatures” whilst lampooning them using terms such as “immature idiots, minions, utterly stupid, rightards, evangelistic and cult-like.” Do you really need this pointed out? Were you really happy with your post when you hit the “Submit Comment” button? Did you think you were adding to the fabric of the debate? Did you think?
Where are the people on here who are ready to debate issues rationally and intelligently? I know of a few. This tit-for-tat, left-right bullshit is ruining this site. Perhaps I shouldn’t expect any more given the purpose. But really, just because you own a keyboard and can whip up a lot of furious words doesn’t make it interesting or enlightened. The above post has got my goat but it could easily have been so many more.
Special mention must go to Pablo, whose “studies in environmental law” are used to establish his bona fides before any credibility vanishes under a post completely devoid of intellectual substance.
He is not alone.
And Rad Ripper, who would be amusing if not for the utter sadness of an ideologically blind man with an inability to see any sense in any other view delivering 1000 posts a day to this very site. I skim over them now.
Believe me, absence doesn’t make the heart grow fonder. Moderate him. If he were a madman on a train you’d move carriages.
I’m going out to smell the roses.* There are more important things in this world than Andrew Fucking Bolt.
Farewell. For now.
*Not strictly true. Im off to bed.
27 August, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Windrider said :
“The Lefties show no respect for their intellectual superiors…”
Are you sure they’re Lefties in that YouTube clip, Windy? Alex Jones is one of the top five most prominent global warming skeptics in the US today. He’s a self-claimed diehard libertarian and conservative. He’s also a 9/11 Truther.
Bolt and Blair have always been very careful to never link to sites pushing Global Warming Conspiracy that also promote 9/11 Truth. There are many of them.
In the US, 9/11 Truth and fighting to expose the “Globalists/NWO/Illuminati Global Warming Conspiracy” go hand in hand.
Which is fair enough. Why be so skeptical of the science of global warming and yet gormlessly believe US government commissioned scientific reports aiming to explain the steel skyscraper collapses of 9/11, where they actually had to make up new science (‘thermal expansion’) to fit it all into the official story?
28 August, 2008 at 12:00 am
But Darryl Fox News says there are “Lefties” !!! They can’t be wrong.
I all honesty Darryl I do not take a huge stake in the claims of the video. I just watched it and laughed. The reporter reminds me of some Bolt wannabe just wandering aimlessly into the march and pissing people off with his argumentative style- “I thought you supported Free speech …” I love that totally condescending crap from the anchor “Here is Griff Jenkins trying to give these people an opportunity to speak out- to tell what their messages is – but they are not even talking all they are doing is screaming and yelling at him.”
You can find more videos of that day when he was chased off earlier.
28 August, 2008 at 12:09 am
Hey Daics, I think you will find the “tit-for-tat, left-right bullshit” is one of the things that pisses me off most as well, and I think that it is unfortunate that is starting to assume a role here. You are preaching to choir on this one.
I have said before that I don’t identify myself as any great lefty, but I have always found the tone of discussion here, to be far, far more superior to the sort of block-headed blurting that goes on at Bolt’s site. Infact there is really no comparison, when one is generally adult-like and the other child-like.
My term “rightard” isn’t meant to refer to anyone from ‘the right’ of politics and certainly not real conservatives, just the sort of rabid non-thinking idiots that regularly form a consensus at sites like Bolt’s.
My problem is in the context of discussion of AGW, which I completely admit is not an area that I know a great deal about, that people like Bolt and his ubiquitous supporters, are described by themselves and some others as “sceptics”, which is completely disingenuous and inaccurate. In reality they are simple ideological knee-jerkers, rejecting what is a potentially serious threat, smearing the debate on the issue, all because of ideology and juvenile narrow-mindedness. Positioning them as sceptics on the issue distorts the debate on it.
28 August, 2008 at 12:17 am
yep windrider, that is a real example of Fox’s amatuer tabloid style there, very similar to Andrew Bolt’s. If they were a real news outlet, they would simple report the crowd’s behavior and remain objective and not cast their own personal judgement’s and sneering labels onto the crowd, regardless of their own personal views. That is not journalism, and its sickening to watch.
28 August, 2008 at 9:18 am
Chris – re Bolt on AGW and more specifically climate change.
Bolt’s childish discussions on climate change and the effect on water supplies (Dam the Mitchell) is the reason DBoP came into existence.
I have caught him out several times over the last few years either misrepresenting politician’s quotes or blatantly lying about the outputs of government bodies.
I know he has to be contraversial to sell papers and generate hits on his website but where is the journalistic integrity associated with fact checking and validity of sources?
Personally i dont agree with every water policy that has been implemented by the Victoria govt on this one. I also dont think the Fed govt (previous regime and this one) have done enough to straighten out the Murray Darling. How silly is it that the Queensland farmers have diverted a record amount of water form the upper reaches of the darling system yet the lower end of the system is almost irreversibly damaged?
Is it a left vs right thing? nope. but is there serious politicing involved? of course there is.
28 August, 2008 at 9:50 am
“Its phenomenal how regularly you can see how a link that Bolt uses to support a position, clearly isn’t what he says it is.”
i know chris, i’ve often seen same. which is why it’s good when you find numerical data that support your position. those ‘number of clicks today’ tags are a boon.
28 August, 2008 at 9:51 am
Why do the left call for the silencing of those who don’t agree with them?
28 August, 2008 at 10:03 am
Why do the left call for the silencing of those who don’t agree with them?
It’s their totalitarian nature. They have problems dealing with opposing views. As far as they are concerned, they are right and the rest of the world is wrong.
If they can’t convince you that they are right, the launch into a tirade of abuse and refuse to hear anything that challenge’s their warped view of the world.
Just take the AGW debate that we have had on this blog as a prime example.
Basically they are after a groupthink utopia.
28 August, 2008 at 10:09 am
Did you notice the row they made about the assasination attempt on Obama?
After all that the fellers were charged with some firearms breaches and nothing else. This suggests it was a staged bust to me. What about you?
28 August, 2008 at 10:19 am
Did you notice the row they made about the assasination attempt on Obama?
After all that the fellers were charged with some firearms breaches and nothing else. This suggests it was a staged bust to me. What about you?
I had to laugh when I heard the media sensationalising it. They were screaming assassination attempt within hours of the guys being arrested. So much for innocent until proven guilty. The guy’s reputations have been destroyed by the media. It was clear when they mentioned that they were meth addicts that they weren’t credible.
I hope those guys sue the media outlets.
28 August, 2008 at 10:30 am
no the media didn’t make the fuss it was the dems that wanted there to be an assasination attempt. Its the whole JFK, Martin Luther king Jr, RFK, them against us thing they are trying to get traction with.
I laughed the other day when Bruce Scapiro called him Osama.
28 August, 2008 at 10:31 am
I know he has to be contraversial to sell papers and generate hits on his website but where is the journalistic integrity associated with fact checking and validity of sources?
In addition DBoP, and I know that this is a relatively subjective test to apply, the behaviour is grossly immoral. As much as I respect and understand the profit motive side of being a columnist, achieving that profitability by deliberately distorting information that you then release into the public domain in order to sway opinion is an unbelievably cynical exercise. Bolt deliberately pushes the debate away from rational scientific analysis and into the world of polemic bias – all while loudly complaining that his detractors are doing exactly the same thing.
His audience then ends up being hideously misinformed yet utterly convinced that they are the sole holders of the truth who are under attack by malevolent forces. He actually engenders a bunker mentality amongst his readers.
You can see this curious phenomenon in most of the Boltards who post here – they are entirely condescending in their regurgitation of Bolt’s talking points (as though they’re revealing some great and unquestionable truth) yet immediately resort to idiotic accusations of deliberate persecution, conspiracy and even secret agendas to destroy westerrn society when the validity of their information is challenged.
The great damage perpetrated by Bolt is not to the wider AGW debate (he’s been utterly marginalised by serious analysts anyway) but to the deluded minions who have elevated him to their sole source of truth. It’s a messianic structure at Boltworld – Bolt issues missives from on high and his disciples treat them as gospel, apparently unaware that they’re allowing their AGW views to be entirely filtered through the ego of one man.
28 August, 2008 at 10:38 am
As opposed to Adams or Marr?
28 August, 2008 at 10:42 am
As opposed to Adams or Marr?
oh and the biggest offender, Al Gore.
His film An Inconvenient Truth has already been proven to be deceptive and factually wrong.
But of course, I am yet to see anyone on this blog site apply the same scrutiny to Al Gore, Flannery … etc
28 August, 2008 at 10:55 am
As opposed to Adams or Marr?
Actually HJ – I don’t disagree with you there. Both Adams and Marr release information to the public that is distorted through the prism of their own ego. I don’t think they’re as gratuituos as Bolt in this regard, but they’re certainly playing in the same mud-pit.
My question to you is why do you recognise that behaviour in Adams and Marr but not in Bolt?
28 August, 2008 at 11:02 am
Isn’t it true that everyone’s view is distorted through the prism of their own ego?
Your’s and mine included.
I’m not here for hours every day condemning Marr and Adams for their distortions. Neither are you.
But you seem only to be interested in the distortions through the prism of their own ego of conservatives.
Like Adams in particular, you are happy to excuse the lies and distortions of those with whom you agree.
28 August, 2008 at 11:07 am
Wher Rick?
Quote please?
28 August, 2008 at 11:16 am
LET’S not forget it was the “man of conviction” John Winston Howard who said more or less that a vote for Obama, would be a vote for terrorism.
I would like to see those on this site jump on rick’s comment for it blatant misrepresentation of what Howard said.
For the record, this is what was really said;
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21207598-29277,00.html
“I think that would just encourage those who wanted completely to destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for (an) Obama victory,” Mr Howard told the Nine Network.
“If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats.”
There is no mention of a vote for Obama is a vote for terrorism.
28 August, 2008 at 11:20 am
Mondo I have no illusions that my views, opinions, prejudices and beliefs are all shaped and distorted through the prism of my own ego. In fact they shape my ego and in turn it shapes them. I am for example, willing to, because my ego has distorted me thus, have a sceptical and cynical view of the phenomenon of climate change. It appears to me to be every bit as much a political as a scientific thing to me.
Attitudes to it are as much shaped by ideoligy as knowledge. The left are clearly using it as a point of argument to force a redistribution of wealth. Its not a coincidence that since the fall of communism we’ve seen the rise of first global warming and then climate change.
Climate change? Isn’t that like a statement of the bleeding obvious?
Anyhow I acknowledge that Bolt et al are prone to cherry picking, but Bolt puts 10 items on his blog each day and pens 5 or 6 columns a week. If this is a true Boltwatch forum, where are editor St Peter’s agreements with the views Bolt shares with him? Where are your’s?
28 August, 2008 at 11:42 am
HJ – It is a bit hard to agree with someone as deluded as Bolt. Some of the comments he makes on TV i find more moderated and thought out and at times balanced. Over the last year or so a vast portion of his comments have come across as rantings. See the Insiders episode with Annable Crabb for example.
Some of his comments start off with good meaning but he then turns them into the usual political one sidedness. This is sad because if he could hold the higher moral ground when it comes to these things a lot of his other arguments would be considered more seriously.
Have a look at his last 10 posts:
1. Miley Cyrus song – global warming
2. Imported fruitpickers getting drunk (like the local ones dont?)
3. Thinly veiled attack on muslims breeding in Europe
4. Obama god
5. Daily Forum
6. Not sure what that one is about – an attack on another blogger by the looks of it
7. Climate Change
8. Praise for Rudd’s Education policy
9. Multiple self links as an attack on Jaspan and the Age
10. Attack on Obama again
He has valid comments about the education reform suggesting that some of the states will resist.
28 August, 2008 at 11:53 am
He actually engenders a bunker mentality amongst his readers.
‘Bunker Mentality’.
Now that’s clever.
Is it a strategy of Bolt’s to put up, daily, such a large amount of posts on his blog?
And that strategy being for his ‘news’ to appear both numerous and breathtakingly insightful, thus encouraging those ‘bunkered’ to no longer feel the need to seek out any further information.
28 August, 2008 at 11:55 am
Found this test the other day. The Political Compass. http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
It presents an interesting point, that the Left/Right classification in politics is a flawed model.
“The old one-dimensional categories of ‘right’ and ‘left’, established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today’s complex political landscape…On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It’s not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can’t explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as ‘right-wingers’, yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook”
I ended up as a moderate, center dwelling Libertarian/Lefty. About what i expected.
Apparently, Rudds test came up as a moderate center dwelling Authortarian/Right. About what i expected.
Good for a laugh!
28 August, 2008 at 11:56 am
Isn’t it true that everyone’s view is distorted through the prism of their own ego?
It’s true HJ – no doubt about it. Equally, everyone is perfectly entitled to promote their view as aggressively as they wish, through public or private commentary, debate, argument and illustration.
A line is crossed, however, when someone decides to promote their view through deliberate deception or misrepresentation. Once a pundit starts engaging in this behaviour they have moved away from legitimate advocacy and into illegitimate propoganda.
It’s true that I’m less critical of left-wing columnists in this regard, but in my opinion none of them (at least in Australia) have crossed the line anywhere near as enthusiastically as Bolt. Gore comes close in my view – he is almost an exact replica of Bolt but on the other side of the debate – but Adams and Marr are amateurs compared to Bolt.
Attitudes to it are as much shaped by ideoligy as knowledge. The left are clearly using it as a point of argument to force a redistribution of wealth. Its not a coincidence that since the fall of communism we’ve seen the rise of first global warming and then climate change
Jim – seriously – this is paranoid conspiracy theory. AGW is a trojan horse for communism? Do you really believe that the thousands of scientists worldwide who support AGW are frustrated communists? It’s just silly stuff – trying to dismiss a huge body of scientific thought as little more than frustrated socislism is real head-in-the-sand denial.
Anyhow I acknowledge that Bolt et al are prone to cherry picking, but Bolt puts 10 items on his blog each day and pens 5 or 6 columns a week. If this is a true Boltwatch forum, where are editor St Peter’s agreements with the views Bolt shares with him?
Glad to hear that you acknowledge that Bolt is presenting a deliberately skewed analysis. Re your second point, scroll down seven posts on the main BoltWatch page and you will find Jeremy has posted an article praising Bolt for his commentary on China.
28 August, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Over the last year or so a vast portion of his comments have come across as rantings.
I think, Dam Buster, it’s because of the higher media saturation of nasty ilk like Bill O’Rielly and Michelle Malkin. Bolt can’t get enough of ‘em.
Tobias gave a great comment to Bolt’s ‘Hear the donkey bray’ shite.
I also note the plonker Abu is still slobbering in Bolt’s den…
28 August, 2008 at 12:03 pm
And that strategy being for his ‘news’ to appear both numerous and breathtakingly insightful, thus encouraging those ‘bunkered’ to no longer feel the need to seek out any further information.
It’s more than just that Idlaviv – he actively encourages his readers to believe that there is an entity out there (i.e. teh Left) that is deliberately and methodically seeking to undermine their way of life. What was the name of the ‘enemy’ in 1984 again – the one that Big Brother uses to convince the populace that they’re perpetually under siege?
Look at Jim’s post above – he appears to genuinely believe that AGW is a communist conspiracy designed by the Left to overthrow Western capitalism. The idea that AGW has arisen out of the ashes of Communism is so ludicrous as to be funny – well, it would be if so many Boltheads didn’t so enthusiastically believe it.
28 August, 2008 at 12:04 pm
But DB “deluded” is an easy word to throw around.
There are 8 teams in the AFLs finals this year. All believe thay have the grits on theor day to win the flag otherwise thay wouldn’t bother turning up, but some clearly believe they will beat Gellong and win the flag. Geelong don’t believe any of them can.
Now DB, who’s deluded?
The tag that someone is suffering a mental deficiency simply because their views, opinions, prejudices and beliefs are shaped and distorted through the prism of an ego with different experiences than your’s is the height of arrogance.
Its the same as having two eye witnesses discribe an event in different terms and calling one a “liar” because their recalections are different to your’s.
Bolt, like you and I, will point out flaws in arguments and behaviour of people with whom he has issue, while ignoring the points where his own views might be brought down. Likewise Marr and Adams, or Singer or even St Peter the denier of his mother.
I see Bolt’s, and my, questioning of AGW/Climate change, as not more than any inquisition of any other religious belief. Quite simply the science does not stand up.
28 August, 2008 at 12:06 pm
“Its not a coincidence that since the fall of communism we’ve seen the rise of first global warming and then climate change”
and so today marks the day i can no longer be shocked by anything i read.
28 August, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Mondo.
the left own AWG.
You can hide from this fact, but it won’t stop it being a fact.
28 August, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Oh c’mon you guys!!!
The calls of AWG the priesthood are strait out of the manifesto. Only the colour has changed.
28 August, 2008 at 12:11 pm
“I see Bolt’s, and my, questioning of AGW/Climate change, as not more than any inquisition of any other religious belief.”
having read many of the posts here (hopefully) and having had it shown how bolt distorts information to suit his agenda, you must know that is a facile statement! in fact, seeing as bolt repeatedly posts the same distortions even when they are drawn to his attention by comments on his blog i think it’s time to dispense with pleasantries and start to call the behaviour for what it is: lies. outright bloody lies.
“Quite simply the science does not stand up.”
that may well be the case, but i wasn’t aware that at this point in time it was at all as clear cut as you perceive. besides, when it comes down to it, i’ll believe scientists on whether the science stands up, not bolt, a now proven liar.
28 August, 2008 at 12:14 pm
the left own AWG.
You can hide from this fact, but it won’t stop it being a fact.
You can’t argue with someone who claims unsubstantiated opinion as fact.
If recent polls are able to be used as a guide, then HJ’s assertion is equivalent to labelling around 80% of people as leftist. [Find if for yourself in the Oz]. Comfortable with that?
28 August, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Mondo.
the left own AWG.
You can hide from this fact, but it won’t stop it being a fact
Not only do they own it but they try to use it as a weapon against those that are conservative. Hence the invention of the totally inappropriate term ‘Denialist”. Simply, this word is used as a way of smearing anyone who disagrees.
No where else in scientific debate is this term used or tolerated. A fact those on this blog refuse to accept.
28 August, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Mondo.
the left own AWG.
You can hide from this fact, but it won’t stop it being a fact.
Oh dear Husky – you appear to have just effectively admitted that you see the AGW debate purely in ideological terms. You see the ‘pro’ AGW position as 100% ‘owned’ by the Left, do you?
What a fundamentally corrupt and unintelligent way to approach an important scientific query. Taking sides based on politics alone.
On the other hand, thanks for conclusively proving my point about the bunker mentality of Bolt’s fans.
28 August, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Confusion
everyone distorts information to suit his agenda.
That’s my point.
28 August, 2008 at 12:18 pm
that may well be the case, but i wasn’t aware that at this point in time it was at all as clear cut as you perceive. besides, when it comes down to it, i’ll believe scientists on whether the science stands up, not bolt, a now proven liar
More likely your statement should read;
i’ll believe scientists who promote AGW on whether the science stands up, not bolt.
I doubt you would ever listen to scientists like David Evans who dispute AGW.
28 August, 2008 at 12:20 pm
If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then the scientific theory of my enemy must be wrong – something like that is it Jim?
28 August, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Confusion
everyone distorts information to suit his agenda.
That’s my point.
Oh wow.
Some of us prefer honest and open inquiry Jim. Scientists in particular, as I understand it.
28 August, 2008 at 12:27 pm
DeaniaL
80% of people won’t argue with any conviction that climate change is caused by humans. They’ll accept the common orthodoxy.
80% of people believe that their mobile phone will blow them up if they use it at the service station too.
80% of people would punch you in the face if you told them its not whisky and rhy.
99% of people celebrated the turn of the century a full year early.
80% of people don’t know more about global warming than they do about how their car engine runs or their PC boots.
Mondo
I see the debate as being completely tied together now. Scientific research into climate almost 100% funded by government and the big winners from global warming will be governments. They will use global warming as the excuse for almost anything. Already we’re seeing unpopular, but perfectly legal activity, banned by local governments on the basis of climate change results that not even the IPCC supports.
28 August, 2008 at 12:29 pm
DeaniaL
LOL. that would have to be the comment of the day
28 August, 2008 at 12:29 pm
“Some of us prefer honest and open inquiry Jim. Scientists in particular, as I understand it.”
Mondo are you suggesting that scientists are always honest?
And if you prefer honest and open inquiry, why do you condemn anyone who questions your views?
28 August, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Mondo are you suggesting that scientists are always honest?
Also I would add to that the belief that scientists are always right.
It is safe to say that when a scientific discovery is made, if there are still unanswered questions which the discovery does not answer, the chances are that the original scientific discovery will be falsified once more of the unanswered questions are answered by future discoveries.
A perfect example of this is the falsification of Newtonian mechanics when Einstein’s theory of relativity was discovered.
28 August, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Mondo are you suggesting that scientists are always honest?
No – what a strange interpretation of my comment.
And if you prefer honest and open inquiry, why do you condemn anyone who questions your views?
I don’t. I condemn those who bring a transparently ideological agenda to a scientific debate. As you’ve now quite openly admitted that you are such a person there’s no rational reason for anyone to engage you in serious debate in relation to AGW.
You’re not alone though Jim – I’d estimate that about 90% of the posters at Boltworld share your totally compromised approach to this issue.
28 August, 2008 at 12:42 pm
” I condemn those who bring a transparently ideological agenda to a scientific debate”
AlGore, Bob Brown, David Suzuki, Tim Flannery?
You condemned them?
28 August, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I haven’t actually participated in a debate with any of them Jim, but rest assured that if they dragged their ideology into a scientific debate with me (and I realised they were doing it) I would be equally critical.
Now stop trying for a “gotcha” moment – you won’t be successful.
28 August, 2008 at 12:59 pm
“DeaniaL”
right. i see from this that your ‘Confusion’ must therefore addressing me and not you just stating a position. i had hoped that you might have more integrity than radp and abu but sadly no. you really are remarkably similar in your rusted on thinking. MR is right and there is no point in devoting any further effort to engaging with either of you.
28 August, 2008 at 1:01 pm
“the left own AWG.
You can hide from this fact, but it won’t stop it being a fact.”
“The calls of AWG the priesthood are strait out of the manifesto. Only the colour has changed.”
Which means Jim, as a ‘Rightist’ that you will never be convinced of the science, as you believe the whole thing to be part of a ‘Leftist’ conspiracy to redistribute wealth. Correct?
You have just proven that your mind is made up, and that it has been made up along ideological Left/Right lines. What will you do if AGW is eventually proven to exist?
RadP, considering your statements from previous threads, do you think your mate Jim is a ‘climate change evangelist’? He has obviously made up his mind on the topic of AGW, despite the continuing debate in the scientific community regarding GW. He also appears to have a lot of faith in this assertion that AGW is a communist plot.
28 August, 2008 at 1:04 pm
“If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then the scientific theory of my enemy must be wrong – something like that is it Jim?”
HAHAHA!
28 August, 2008 at 1:04 pm
right. i see from this that your ‘Confusion’ must therefore addressing me and not you just stating a position. i had hoped that you might have more integrity than radp and abu but sadly no. you really are remarkably similar in your rusted on thinking. MR is right and there is no point in devoting any further effort to engaging with either of you
And there you have it. My point proven. If you don’t conform to their groupthink, they abuse you and then refuse to debate. A perfect form of totalitarian groupthink.
28 August, 2008 at 1:08 pm
RadP is a proven liar:
http://blairboltwatch.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/backhanded-sympathy/#comment-8590
I suggest that he is ignored.
28 August, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Which means Jim, as a ‘Rightist’ that you will never be convinced of the science, as you believe the whole thing to be part of a ‘Leftist’ conspiracy to redistribute wealth. Correct?
Summarised perfectly DbD.
28 August, 2008 at 1:10 pm
RadP, considering your statements from previous threads, do you think your mate Jim is a ‘climate change evangelist’? He has obviously made up his mind on the topic of AGW, despite the continuing debate in the scientific community regarding GW. He also appears to have a lot of faith in this assertion that AGW is a communist plot
Don’t be ridiculous DbD. Calling those that are sceptical of AGW evangelist is equivalent to calling an Atheist an evangelist. Evangelism is associated with faith and belief. Scepticism is not a faith and it is not a belief. In fact, scepticism is a lack of belief in something.
He is a Climate Change sceptic. He has stated that he is sceptical of the science of AGW.
28 August, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Sceptisism is one thing.
Accusing people who suggest that we err on the side of caution of being part of some global communist plot is a fantasy and evidence of a disturbed and paranoid mind.
Imagine if i suggested that Andrew Bolt believes what he does not because he is of a sceptical and inquiring turn of mind, but because he is part of a global neocon/rightwing plot to destroy the world. You would (quite rightly) call me a fucking nut case.
Apply this same logic to ‘Husky Jim’ and his insane (and inane) conspiracy theory.
28 August, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Accusing people who suggest that we err on the side of caution of being part of some global communist plot is a fantasy and evidence of a disturbed and paranoid mind
I can’t speak directly for husky, but I am sure that you are over dramatising what he has said.
I don’t think that he is saying AGW is a global communist plot. I believe he is saying that the old socialist movements are using AGW as a tool to further their cause for wealth re-distribution.
Also it is safe to say that AGW and Climate Change is being used as a serious political Tool around the world. Now there is nothing sinister in saying that or paranoid. It is a reality.
Evidence of this is John Howard realising that he had to come up with a Climate change policy in the 2007 election even though he was a Climate change sceptic.
28 August, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I haven’t actually participated in a debate with any of them Jim,…….
But you have participated in one with Bolt?
Surely a belief that scientists are universally honest and that nobody has anything to gain from AWG policy being forced on Western society is in itself an ideology.
The fact that you admit you’ve never realised that AWG priests are idiologically driven says something about you cognative powers there Mondo.
28 August, 2008 at 1:41 pm
My prevalent mood on the challenges we face in dealing with climate change? Couldn’t give a rat’s ring, to be honest. What will be will be. The silver lining to all the hype is that people are actually thinking about tidying up after themselves environment-wise for a change.
28 August, 2008 at 1:42 pm
The man of steel said!Terrorists would be happy, if Sen. Obama won- more or less.
You are taking out of context what Howard was saying. Howard was saying that terrorists in Iraq would be delighted at the democratic policy to withdraw US troops from Iraq. In addition, because the republican’s policy was to keep the troops in Iraq, it is safe to say that the insurgences in Iraq would want the Democrats to win so that their biggest enemy, US troops would leave the country.
Of course they would be happy with that. Are you suggesting that they would not?!
28 August, 2008 at 1:48 pm
DbD
Scientists are scientists. The don’t do PR, they don’t do politics, they do science.
In the 70s their science said ice age comming. Many of the same scientists were as equally convinced then that we were in deep danger of calamity from the cold as we are now from the warm. But it never go the attention then that AGW has now because there was not money or power in it.
However since the wall came down and the pillars of the left were torn to bits they have had nothing to hang their hat on. Then along comes global warming.
Its not the scientists that are driving this it is the PR and pilitical people hungry for $$$ and power.
As if losing this argument will change the mind of any of you.
No lefty ever changed his mind as a result of losing an argument.
Why will you be the first.
28 August, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Surely a belief that scientists are universally honest
Now now Jimbo – I’ve already categorically told you that I don’t believe that. Raising this already refuted accusation a second time is simply dishonest.
and that nobody has anything to gain from AWG policy being forced on Western society
Nobody here has argued this Jim – you’re simply inventing claims now.
But I would like to offer you my genuine thanks for coming here and illustrating so clearly the level of dishonest ideological paranoia at the core of the average Bolthead. Kudos to you Jim.
28 August, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Rad once again, im so glad we have your mindreading abilities available to us on this blog. It would be a poorer place if we didnt have you to translate what Bolt, Jim and others REALLY meant to say.
But back to the topic of what Jim actually DID say: “The left are clearly using it as a point of argument to force a redistribution of wealth. Its not a coincidence that since the fall of communism we’ve seen the rise of first global warming and then climate change.”
28 August, 2008 at 1:52 pm
No lefty ever changed his mind as a result of losing an argument.
Why will you be the first
They go into DeaniaL mode and try and shut down debate.
it’s groupthink or nothing.
28 August, 2008 at 1:58 pm
But back to the topic of what Jim actually DID say: “The left are clearly using it as a point of argument to force a redistribution of wealth. Its not a coincidence that since the fall of communism we’ve seen the rise of first global warming and then climate change.”
That is very different to what you said before which was;
Accusing people who suggest that we err on the side of caution of being part of some global communist plot is a fantasy and evidence of a disturbed and paranoid mind
28 August, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Does Bolt hand out gold stars and doggy biscuits to you retards who mindlessly chant his slogans: “pillars of the left”, “shut down debate”, “green religion”, “AGW priests”?
And you have the temerity to accuse “the left” of “groupthink”!
28 August, 2008 at 2:01 pm
So Mondo
Your open minded, but those that don’t share your view are Tards of various types and dishonest?
You however accept the word of people you agree are dishonest and follow the ideology of those who have no nobler motive than wealth and power.
But you’re right, so that’s all OK.
28 August, 2008 at 2:03 pm
In the 70s their science said ice age comming. Many of the same scientists were as equally convinced then that we were in deep danger of calamity from the cold as we are now from the warm.
There were a total of about 7 papers published in the peer-reviewed literature in the 70s that even mention the possibility of there being an impending ice age, and not all those 7 papers actually predict that outcome. During the same time period there were about 6 times that many papers published that explicitly looked at the problem of AGW and its mechanisms, and made predictions about it.
There never was a scientific consensus in the 70s that we were heading for an ice age. Not even close. And certainly nothing remotely comparable to the overwhelming evidence and consensus we have today on the reality and risk of AGW.
Your claim is completely bogus, and is one of the standard pieces of disinformation propaganda that the denialists continue to fling about, no matter how many times it is disproved.
28 August, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Look out. Here’s the angry Ant.
28 August, 2008 at 2:04 pm
The American people would be happy to have the troops out of Persia, and I would like to have Howard face a world court for war crimes.
Still, it doesn’t change the reality that the ultimate goal of the insurgence in Iraq is to have the US troops out of the country. This means that the will like what ever political party supports this. In the case of the US election, it is only the democrats that have said that they will withdraw troops from Iraq.
That doesn’t mean that a vote for the democrats is a vote for terrorists.
You are just desperate to find something sinister in Howard.
28 August, 2008 at 2:04 pm
“As if losing this argument will change the mind of any of you.
No lefty ever changed his mind as a result of losing an argument.
Why will you be the first.”
Sorry? Which argument did i lose?
(Tune in next week for more of the imaginary victories of RadP and his trusty mexican side kick, Husky Jim.)
28 August, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Just Me “Your claim is completely bogus, and is one of the standard pieces of disinformation propaganda that the denialists continue to fling about, no matter how many times it is disproved”
Like Monkeys flinging their shit around a cage at the zoo.
28 August, 2008 at 2:05 pm
That should read:
During the same time period there were about 7 times that many papers…
28 August, 2008 at 2:12 pm
That should read:
During the same time period there were about 7 times that many papers…
So who were labelled the Climate change denialist back then? The Global coolers or the global warmers?
28 August, 2008 at 2:18 pm
“You however accept the word of people you agree are dishonest and follow the ideology of those who have no nobler motive than wealth and power.
But you’re right, so that’s all OK.”
Jim/Rad, I know you guys don’t bother reading the links provided. So…
“In May this year, the multibillion-dollar oil giant Exxon-Mobil acknowledged that it had been doing something similar. It announced that it would cease funding nine groups that had fuelled a global campaign to deny climate change.”
“Last year, the chairman of the US House of Representatives oversight committee on science and technology, Brad Miller, said Exxon’s support for sceptics appears to be an effort to distort public discussion”
http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/who-is-behind-climate-change-deniers-20080802-3ou6.html
So Jim. Do YOU follow the ideology of those who have no nobler motive than wealth and power?
28 August, 2008 at 2:21 pm
DbD
I didn’t say you had lost any argument mate.
You must be feeling inferior, and not without reason, but I never said you had lost.
BTW nice racist comment.
Isn’t it strange how only sceptics use “disinformation propaganda”.
And that scepticism becomes denial when its not shared.
And that honest scientists still use the hockey stick.
And that falling global temp is “warming” or should that be “change”? I’ve lost track of the orthodoxy now.
Ok honesty time.
Who went crazy on Dec 13 1999?
Who sings “whisky and rhy”?
Who thinks Cagney said “you dirty rat”?
28 August, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Would you believe Dec 31st 1999?
28 August, 2008 at 2:24 pm
DbD
Are you suggesting that only big oil has anything to gain in this debate?
28 August, 2008 at 2:27 pm
And that honest scientists still use the hockey stick
I think that you will find Husky that most on this blog site are still firm believers in the hockey stick graph, even though the scientific community accept that it is flawed.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
28 August, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Are you heavily medicated Jim?
28 August, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Are you heavily medicated Jim?
I suspect a case of DeaniaL. Someone finds it hard to believe that people could be profiting out of the AGW scare. Better not tell them the enormous amount of money the likes of flannery and Gore make from the public speaking tours or Gore’s companies.
28 August, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Did you just quote Brad Miller?
Democrat?
Didn’t the democrat’s get $195,258 from Exxon.
28 August, 2008 at 2:35 pm
More on the “hockey stick”.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
28 August, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Isn’t it strange how only sceptics use “disinformation propaganda”.
They do when they are lying, which is frequently.
And that scepticism becomes denial when its not shared.
It is denial when it is not genuinely open minded scepticism, that takes account of all the evidence and possibilities.
And that honest scientists still use the hockey stick.
Ah, this tired old canard again. The hockey stick has not been disproven, and its use is not dishonest. Sorry to disappoint you.
And that falling global temp is “warming” or should that be “change”?
The properly calculated global temp trend is still up.
I’ve lost track of the orthodoxy now.
More like you have lost track of your ethics. As shown by your desperate attempt to avoid addressing the point of my post, which was your false claim that in the 70s “many” scientists predicted an impending ice age.
You do not what the hell you are talking about. You are just regurgitating the usual superficial, willfully ignorant, dishonest denialist talking points, none of which have yet stood up to proper scrutiny.
28 August, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Your open minded, but those that don’t share your view are Tards of various types and dishonest?
Oh no – don’t get me wrong Jim. It’s specifically you who I’m accusing of being a dishonest ‘tard. You who has, on this thread alone, deliberately misrepresented other’s arguments, admitted that your objection to AGW is largely ideological (not scientific), and engaged in self-evidently inane conspiracy theories.
Please don’t make the mistake of thinking that I hold you up as representative of everyone I disagree with. I honestly don’t – you have been quite exceptional in the level of debate you have provided.
28 August, 2008 at 2:40 pm
For RadP – A paper David Evans presented includes “By the way, our carbon emissions have no doubt caused some underlying warming”. http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/DavidEvans010808.html
28 August, 2008 at 2:41 pm
No Husky. Im suggesting that ‘big oil’ as you call it have an awful lot to lose if AGW is proved and are extremely well financed. And that they have admitted to attempting to use that money and influence to distort public opinion and muddy the waters in the AGW debate.
Have you read the link yet. No?
28 August, 2008 at 2:42 pm
HJ “In the 70s their science said ice age comming. Many of the same scientists were as equally convinced then that we were in deep danger of calamity from the cold as we are now from the warm.”
Name just 10.
28 August, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Name just 10.
He he.
I only know of one who fulfils HJ’s criteria. Anybody know who it is? Hint: they are quite famous.
28 August, 2008 at 2:48 pm
This is a great article from the Pew website.
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/global-warming-science-brief-august2008.pdf
28 August, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Name just 10
One would kill the argument.
28 August, 2008 at 3:08 pm
But DbD if global warming was indeed a natural phenomenon wouldn’t there be billions of dollars and thousands of reputations vapourised?
Yes I have read the whole article.
It appears to me that the only difference between them and say Gore, is that they admit spinning the issue to suit them.
If you’re open to the science then why are you so closed to the scientists that say it may be natural.
I’ve never denied it could be man made, and neither has bolt that i am aware.
I say that we’re asking an awful lot of people to change based on incomplete speculative science and a lot of ideological alarmism.
90% sure isn’t good enough.
Of course the fact that you lefties get so upset when the flaws in your religion are exposed is just a bonus for me.
28 August, 2008 at 3:09 pm
One would kill the argument.
Bullshit. You said “many”. So naming 10 should be an easy slam dunk.
Well, who are they?
Put up, or shut up.
28 August, 2008 at 3:10 pm
………, admitted that your objection to AGW is largely ideological ………………..
Please quote?
28 August, 2008 at 3:13 pm
90% sure isn’t good enough.
Would you refuse to take out fire insurance on your house if there was a 90% chance it would burn down?
28 August, 2008 at 3:18 pm
john51,
prof barry brooks puts jennifer marohasy’s claims in last weekends Oz under the microscope. an interesting read about another who is claimed to distort the science.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/24/dr-jennifer-marohasy-ignores-the-climate-science/
28 August, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Jim – any rational interpretation of your comments to this thread, including the following:
“Mondo. the left own AWG.”
“The calls of AWG the priesthood are strait out of the manifesto.”
The left are clearly using it as a point of argument to force a redistribution of wealth. Its not a coincidence that since the fall of communism we’ve seen the rise of first global warming and then climate change
will lead the reader to the inescapable conclusion that your primary objetcion to AGW is that you perceive it to be a left-wing issue.
But look – if it makes you feel better I’ll admit that you haven’t yet stated this most obvious of truths outright. Do you now wish to deny that your rejection of the science supporting AGW is primarily based on your ideology rather than any genuine understanding of that science?
28 August, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Ah Just me.
What insurance company would insure my house with a 90% chance of it burning down?
They would demand an enormouse premium.
If there was a 90% chance my house would burn down, but I had to starve my kids to insure the house. I’d feed the kids.
You’re the religious type it seems.
The risk of not believing in God is that if you’re wrong you’ll go to hell.
However if you believe in him and you’re wrong there’s no down side. In fact you’ll probably treat people a lot better and make a bigger contribution to the world if you believe in him because that’s the way to get to heaven isn’t it.
If there’s no God then at least there will be a lot of people who liked you at the funeral when you die.
Because you always did the right thing. Love thy neighbour and all that.
If there was a 90% chance my house would burn down, but I had to starve my kids to insure the house. I’d feed the kids.
28 August, 2008 at 3:30 pm
will lead the reader to the inescapable conclusion that your primary objetcion to AGW is that you perceive it to be a left-wing issue.
No anyone with a brain will see that the politics of AGW is what I am talking about.
The global climate is cooling (or at least not warming)so any rational interpretation of the debate would suggest that there may be an issue with the premis that humans alone are (were) causing the warming.
28 August, 2008 at 3:38 pm
….I’ll admit that you haven’t yet stated this most obvious of truths outright.
Ok so you admit misrepresenting my views.
But you are allowed to because you “believe”.
Do you now wish to deny that your rejection of the science supporting AGW is primarily based on your ideology rather than any genuine understanding of that science?
I’ve never said i understand the science.
Where have I said i understand the science?
What I have done is read many many views, by people who do understand the science, who have more to lose than to gain by saying so, who say that the jury should still be out on the causes of climate change, the seriousness of climate change and the very real likelihood that the warming we’ve recently experienced was natural and is over.
I also observe that almost all of the people who push the alarmism either have something to gain from the continuation of that orthadoxy or something to lose from the loss of it.
28 August, 2008 at 3:42 pm
You’re the religious type it seems.
Nope, the scientific type.
The fact that you have to resort to the cheap ‘religious fervour’ accusation, pretty well discredits your entire case. You have failed to answer any of the serious criticisms of your claims, and provide any serious evidence in support of them, and have instead indulged in superficial ideological rhetoric. Classic denialism.
The global climate is cooling (or at least not warming)
Complete bullshit.
28 August, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I’ve never said i understand the science.
That is pretty obvious. And it seems that you do not want to either.
28 August, 2008 at 3:47 pm
This used to be a good blog to pop in and have a read. That was the before this latest nasty infestation of trolls derailed the comments threads.
Sigh.
28 August, 2008 at 3:47 pm
What’s your scientific background there Just Me?
28 August, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Just me.
You didn’t answer the question.
What insurance company would insure a hose with a 90% chance of burning down?
28 August, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Just Me?
28 August, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Hmmm!
Quick on the draw when he thinks he has an easy hit. Not so in the clinches.
28 August, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Name just 10. C’mon.
28 August, 2008 at 3:57 pm
No Husky. Im suggesting that ‘big oil’ as you call it have an awful lot to lose if AGW is proved and are extremely well financed. And that they have admitted to attempting to use that money and influence to distort public opinion and muddy the waters in the AGW debate.
mate, Gore and his cronies have a shit load to lose as well if AGW is proven to be false. The $ millions Gore, Flannery.. etc earn in speaking tours would dry up in a flash. Also all those companies that have invested in carbon credits.
There is also the political careers of those that have used AGW to attack their opponents like Rudd.
It is naive to think that big oil companies are the only ones with something to lose in the AGW debate.
28 August, 2008 at 3:59 pm
I suspect a case of DeaniaL. Someone finds it hard to believe that people could be profiting out of the AGW scare. Better not tell them the enormous amount of money the likes of flannery and Gore make from the public speaking tours or Gore’s companies.
Mate! LOL that is such a classic. There is a shit load of DeaniaL here. LOL
28 August, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I’d love Bolt to be sitting down, like an Alex DeLarge, forced to watch Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s speech over and over and over and over…
28 August, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Quick on the draw when he thinks he has an easy hit. Not so in the clinches.
Oh, the irony.
28 August, 2008 at 4:09 pm
So what’s your scientific background there Just Me
28 August, 2008 at 4:26 pm
No no seriously Just Me, you must have a scientific background to make your criticism of others valid.
28 August, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Ok so you admit misrepresenting my views.
No Jim – I am quite certain that I have not misrepresented your views in the slightest. What you mean to say here is that I have made an assertion about your views without providing definitive proof that my assertion is correct. This is not the same as ‘misrepresentation’.
I grow tired of patching up the holes in your logic.
I’ve never said i understand the science.
Yet you were quite happy to post the following as your first contribution to this thread: “AGW is little more than bluffs and white lies”.
So you don’t understand the science behind AGW, yet you are able to assert with confidence that it is all bluff and lies?
Are you beginning to see the Mack-truck sized hole in your argument yet?
What I have done is read many many views, by people who do understand the science
The primary source of which appears to be Andrew Bolt – HeraldSun opinion columnist and science illiterate. I think you might be fooling yourself about the extent to which your sources “understand the science”.
Jim – seems to me that you’ve just admitted that you have absolutely no idea about the veracity of AGW and that you’re just letting your opinions be fed to you by fellow ideologues. Not that this is a surprise – everyone else here realised this truth long ago.
28 August, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Agree with Skeptic.
This used to be interesting and enjoyable till the Troll double-act started their repeat performances.
Husky’s the brains.
Matt’s the tumor….
28 August, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Just Me?
Have you lost interest?
28 August, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I have made an assertion about your views without providing definitive proof that my assertion is correct.
Mondo speak for.
I misrepresented your view.
28 August, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Gawd – our trolls are of such poor quality!
Husky to DbD: Are you suggesting that only big oil has anything to gain in this debate?
DbD to Husky: No Husky. Im suggesting that ‘big oil’ as you call it have an awful lot to lose if AGW is proved and are extremely well financed.
Ron Blogger to DbD:It is naive to think that big oil companies are the only ones with something to lose in the AGW debate.
Sigh. Their arguments are self-refuting. There’s just no challenge anymore.
28 August, 2008 at 4:34 pm
So you don’t understand the science behind AGW, yet you are able to assert with confidence that it is all bluff and lies.
It was a repeating what someone else had said that AGW scepticism was. I was pointing out the stupididty of that comment. I see you got the point.
28 August, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Mondo speak for.
I misrepresented your view.
Hello? Is this supposed to mean something?
28 August, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Husky’s 2nd comment:
How sad that a bunch of “adults” get togther and spend so much time simply trashing two men for holding views they cannot share.
This I fear is itself a sign of mental illness and I have great sympathy for you all.
There was hardly much hope for a rational discourse or discussion after such a debut. Small wonder that the other two trolls have latched hold. If we get a few more trolls, they might yet scrape together a brain between them.
28 August, 2008 at 4:40 pm
The primary source of which appears to be Andrew Bolt – HeraldSun opinion columnist and science illiterate.
Another assertion without proof?
What makes you think I have not read more widely than Bolt?
illiterate. I think you might be fooling yourself about the extent to which your sources “understand the science.
Would you like me to give you a couple of names who’s understanding of science you question here?
Jim – seems to me that you’ve just admitted that you have absolutely no idea about the veracity of AGW and that you’re just letting your opinions be fed to you by fellow ideologues.
Seems to you?
Well Mongo that’s another misrepresentation.
You admitted that you take your scientific credo from dishonest scientists.
28 August, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Idlaviv – Yep got to agree with you there. They ask for evidence on one side of the argument yet only trot out the same tired flawed arguments to ‘prove’ what they are trying to say.
28 August, 2008 at 4:41 pm
It was a repeating what someone else had said that AGW scepticism was. I was pointing out the stupididty of that comment.
You’re a pathetic little liar Jim. Nowhere in the comments preceeding your post was “AGW scepticism” even mentioned.
Congratulations, however, for trotting out the well worn rightard excuse when caught out making a demonstrably stupid statement – “I was being sarcastic”. You’ve pretty much tried out every single dishonest argument in the playbook on this thread.
You’re a poster-child for your particular brand of ideologue HJ – you do know that don’t you?
28 August, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Truth smarting still DeaniaL.
28 August, 2008 at 4:42 pm
HJ – Name just 10.
28 August, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Just Me?
Have you lost interest?
Just about.
I write technical summaries of peer reviewed papers in an area of medical science. Read about about 20 000 over the last 25 years, plus a mountain of associated literature. Also have a chunk of engineering and physics in my background. I know how science works, at the theoretical, experimental and applied levels, and I have had a lot of practice at spotting BS trying to be passed off as solid science.
But that is not the point, something you clearly have not understood. The point is that you have been unable to back any of your claims with solid evidence, and when challenged to do so you just dodge and weave and spin, desperately trying to change the subject and the goalposts, whining about how biased scientists are, and how it is all just a communist plot, blahblahblah. You claim not to understand the science, but are able to dismiss the whole of climate science out of hand. It’s pathetic arrogance on your part. You wouldn’t last two minutes in the hardcore debates that take place in mainstream science. You would be laughed out of the room.
You do not have to be a trained scientist to get involved in science debates (though it helps). But if you are going to play the science game, you gotta do it by the rules real scientists have to. Those rules might seem tough and difficult to understand at first, but they are there for a very good reason.
The obligation in science is on you to show us the evidence that both supports your claims AND refutes competing claims. If you can’t do that then we are under no obligation to pay any attention to you or your claims. Personal opinion and ideology, and especially evidence free assertion, count for nothing in science, something you clearly have not grasped.
Yep, I’ve had enough of your nonsense now. Got better things to do. Bye.
28 August, 2008 at 4:44 pm
What truth is that Husk?
28 August, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Holy crap
“Tim Blair’s and Andrew Bolt’s daily pronouncements that the scientific proof is mounting against the thesis of anthropogenic climate change are, as we’ve argued at this site, often little more than bluffs and white lies delivered to a gaggle of sycophants eager to gobble them up” By Ant Rogenous.
Repeated in msg 1 of this thread by ——you.
28 August, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Just Me.
Yeah right.
I’m Neil Armstrong.
No really!!!
28 August, 2008 at 4:51 pm
tood. The point is that you have been unable to back any of your claims with solid evidence.
Its a blog stupid. I’ve yet to see you counter any of my points with any solid evidence either.
15 all.
28 August, 2008 at 4:53 pm
HJ – What is your science background?
Name Just 10.
28 August, 2008 at 4:56 pm
You do not have to be a trained scientist to get involved in science debates
You don’t need to pretend to be either.
(though it helps)
Nope. Made you look stupid actually.
to. Those rules might seem tough and difficult to understand at first, but they are there for a very good reason.
But that’s the point. Most of the scientific argument I have read by AGW sceptics (scientists, not journalists) suggests that these rules are being tinkered with.
28 August, 2008 at 4:57 pm
There you go Jim – the “proof” that you have provided actually exposes your lie.
Where, in that quote, is the AGW sceptic’s position described as “bluffs and white lies”? I only see Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair’s ‘daily pronouncements’ described as such.
Just Me.
Yeah right.
I’m Neil Armstrong.
No really!!!
Jim – Just Me absolutely demolished you with his response. He left you with absolutley nowhere to go – except simplistic denial.
Good to see you latched on to that final option with such gusto.
Now with that pathetic closing from you I must bid you farewell. Home calls, and you’ve been demolished on this thread quite sufficiently in my view.
28 August, 2008 at 4:59 pm
HJ – You have not linked a single proof or evidence of any of your claims in this entire thread. No direct quotes, no links to references, not even a list of 10 of the ‘many’ scientists.
28 August, 2008 at 5:10 pm
“If you’re open to the science then why are you so closed to the scientists that say it may be natural.”
Husky, I have never said i am ‘closed to the scientists that say it may be natural’ I have said time and time again that regardless of the cause i believe in erring on the side of caution.
DbD
22 August, 2008 at 2:12 pm
“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.”
You throw up this bullshit “if global warming was indeed a natural phenomenon wouldn’t there be billions of dollars and thousands of reputations vapourised?”
Which the answer to is yes, of course.
How many billions of dollars and thousands of reputations would be vapourised if we decide to do nothing and it is a real problem?
I suggest you apply your ‘logic’ to every part of your life, Jim.
Cancel your health insurance. You probably wont get sick.
Don’t wear your seatbelt. Sheel be right.
Don’t practice safe sex. You probably wont catch anything too nasty.
28 August, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I only see Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair’s ‘daily pronouncements’ described as such.
Bolt and Blair are not sceptics?
28 August, 2008 at 5:22 pm
“Mondo.
the left own AWG.
You can hide from this fact, but it won’t stop it being a fact”
This is the greatest myth surrounding the debate on AGW. The real issue is ‘the right’ own climate change denialism. I don’t like to brandy around terms “the left” or “the right”, and I admit that “denialist” isn’t the best description, but I am yet to see a word that better describes the collective movement that uses any tactic, spin on logic, alarmism, name calling or obfuscation to dismiss the prospect that AGW is occurring and that we should do anything about it.
For all the rubbish the denialist movement engages in, all the absurd abstract accusations regarding those concerned about AGW, including the assertion that these people have their beliefs rooted in totalitarianism, or that they belong to an evangelistic movements, all the dreaming up all sorts of conspiracy beliefs and caricatures, the very fact that the denialists do this, makes them the real evangelists and religious types, when in reality the majority of people concerned about AGW are just everyday people, whose concerns lie in practicality and acknowledgement that we must consider the health of the planet.
The very moment that someone brings in Nazi politics, or labels people concerned about AGW as new-age Communists, or who attempts to paint concern regarding AGW as “anti-human” into an argument dismissing concern and action on AGW, immediately makes the an evangelist and cultist, not worth listening too. This is the behaviour that people like Bolt engage in, and this is not the behaviour of a “sceptic”.
The simple fact is the denialist has their belief rooted in one thing and that is ideological servitude, AGW is an issue that involves concern for the environment, so by knee-jerk extension it must be dismissed. The denialists are the ones that have turned this into a real political issue. When the majority of people concerned about AGW are just everday, non-ideological people concerned about the real risks of AGW, because so many scientists warn about it.
28 August, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Again no proof.. no list, no new thinking… round and round we go…
28 August, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Jim – Just Me absolutely demolished you with his response. He left you with absolutley nowhere to go – except simplistic denial.
There’s you problem Mondo.
You “believe” simply because it suits you to believe. What evidence do you have of his claim?
I have said time and time again that regardless of the cause i believe in erring on the side of caution.
But if the cause is natural what is the side of caution?
Its like saying that wearing a helmet will stop othr drivers going through a red light.
How many billions of dollars and thousands of reputations would be vapourised if we decide to do nothing and it is a real problem?
Yes. Believe in God lest ye end up in hell.
Lets first be sure.
Very powerful and traditionally untrustworthy forces are positioning us to make fundamental changes to the way we live and give fundamentally sweeping powers to people we would not ordinarily give those powers to DbD.
You seem willing to hand those freedoms and $$$ over on the basis that its better to be safe than sorry.
I’m unwilling to for the same reasons I admit that, but at least I’ll not pretend I have “proof” I’m right.
Having health insurance won’t stop me getting sick DbD. Wearing a seatbelt won’t stop me having an accident.
The safe sex thing is out because I have one safe partner, but getting rid of that partner on the basis that she might one day no longer be safe?
Good luck with that approach.
28 August, 2008 at 5:28 pm
DB. What is proof?
28 August, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Chris.
LOL.
28 August, 2008 at 5:30 pm
HJ – At least Just Me puts something up rather than your baseless arguments.
Name Just 10.
28 August, 2008 at 5:32 pm
HJ “Most of the scientific argument I have read by AGW sceptics (scientists, not journalists) suggests that these rules are being tinkered with.”
Why dont you link a single one of them? Where is your evidence to back this claim?
Why havent you named ANY of the ‘many’ scientists?
28 August, 2008 at 5:38 pm
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proof
any effort, process, or operation designed to establish or discover a fact or truth
You see HJ – Everyone else here has applied an effort (even RadP has links). But you??? nah you’re too good for that eh?
28 August, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Wow, it’s taken quite some time to wade through the comments of the past couple of days – only to find that, despite repeated attempts, nobody has been able to get the “falsificationists” to advance beyond repeating the same things over and over again. So, after all of that reading, there is nothing to actually respond to.
Idlaviv, thanks for the thumbs-up about my post about Bolt’s post on Teh Left attacking Michelle Malkin. Here’s a link for anyone who is interested – and in another post I’ve noted the argument that is breaking out in the comments on Bolt’s blog (poor Timmeh’s being ignored).
Darryl Mason has been doing a good job of trying to inject some facts in there as well, but we seem to be having little impact – both Bolt’s neocon audience and Alex Jones’s libertarian/paleocon crowd are fighting each other while thinking they are up against Teh Left.
28 August, 2008 at 5:55 pm
“I have said time and time again that regardless of the cause i believe in erring on the side of caution.
But if the cause is natural what is the side of caution?”
Let’s try again Jim. “But -IF- the cause is natural what is the side of caution?” Do you see what you missed? Do you understand that just because you believe something to be true does not make it so?
“Having health insurance won’t stop me getting sick DbD. Wearing a seatbelt won’t stop me having an accident.”
Yes Jim, but it wil stop you flying through the windscreen at 60 kmph, or being landed with thousands of dollars worth of medical bills.
You are amazing Jim. Ive never seen someone miss the point SO completely before. Well done!
With every line you type, you make yourself look even more of a fuckwit.
28 August, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Im out.
I may be a masochist, but im not that much of a masochist.
Even Rad and Abu were not as bad as this turd.
28 August, 2008 at 7:14 pm
“Why havent you named ANY of the ‘many’ scientists?”
because he can’t. he made it up as it has now become patently clear. he was lying at the start of this thread, lying in the middle of this thread and is still bloody lying! persist with the wanker if you want but i think your wasting your time. trolls are best ignored.
back on topic, and timmy reaches for new heights of desperation in his attempt to get readers to his blog. he is now going to live blog a fictional drama that previews on channel 9 on sunday. liveblogging actual real events i can get, but a fictional television show? wtf?
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/basically_a_true_story/
28 August, 2008 at 7:52 pm
DB
surely if I suggest a proof and you don’t accept it then its not a proof?
“Everyone else here has applied an effort …”
Point me to where?
“Do you understand that just because you believe something to be true does not make it so?”
I do, but clearly here I am alone in that.
Yes Jim, but it wil stop you flying through the windscreen at 60 kmph, or being landed with thousands of dollars worth of medical bills.
Will it?
So you have figure that state that nobody ever went through the windscreen at 60 kmph, or got landed with thousands of dollars worth of medical bills when involved in an accident wearing a seatbelt?
Ive never seen someone miss the point SO completely before.
You should re-read more of your stuff.
With every line you type, you make yourself look even more of a fuckwit.
Of course stating catagorically that seatbelts stop all injury stamps you as a genius.
Note that the lefty has resorted to the steriotypical name calling and profanity. Next he’ll be calling for the banning.
David Suzuki.
Tim Flannery.
28 August, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Thanks for that link confessions.
Discussing issues with trolls is a waste of effort really, gentleman. My Dad said to me once “Never argue with a mug!”
28 August, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Your dad was a wise man. Is he a fan of this site?
28 August, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Hey! I can just change the name in the “Leave a Reply” bit and I can be anyone I like!
Wow! I’m Mighty Matt, I’m Rad Pipper, I’m Husky Jim, I’m Neil Armstrong…. weeeeee!
This is fun!
You Lefties are all wrong about everything!
Weeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Yipppeeeee!
This is even more fun than smearing my own faeces all over the nursery wall!
28 August, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Glad to see Bolt is trotting out racial slurs (“coolies”) to score points now. Is nothing beyond this man? First he exploits the death of an innocent child for his anti-AGW agenda, now he purposefully insults those would work in jobs that we can’t otherwise fill. I’m just waiting for him (or one of his apologists) to call Obama a n***** just to make a point.
28 August, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Where did I say that “all lefties are wrong about everything”? See, you misrepresent and lie to further your evangelical belief that the planet could possibly be threatened by anything to do with burning fossil fuels.
I prefer to wait and see, frankly.
Liar.
Flannery!
28 August, 2008 at 9:10 pm
And there aren’t even any links provided.
Bolt and Blair provide links.
You are all liars who hate the economy and love Rudd.
Ha!
28 August, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Boss,
Ze Plane!
Ze Plane!
28 August, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Oh Crap!
They’re on to us. Run for the hills.
Gone, gone, gone! All that work, all that planning for what?
Now that we’ve been exposed we’ll never redistribute wealth.
Disband. Stand down. At ease, and on your way.
At least we tried.
(Sobs – but with stiff upper lip)
I’m off to consume as much energy as I can!
28 August, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Bloody trolls!
keep it on topic, you fools!
28 August, 2008 at 10:57 pm
“This is even more fun than smearing my own faeces all over the nursery wall!”
LOL! Comedy gold! LOLOLOL!!!!
28 August, 2008 at 11:15 pm
I can even be “Left Goog” if I like.
28 August, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Oh no, I’ve fallen into a trap. I’ve just worked out what “Goog” is when spelled backwards: “gooG”!
I cannot further participate in this argument. I have been exposed as a fool.
Sorry everyone.
28 August, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Oh my aching sides. Comedy Gold. LOLOLOL!!!
29 August, 2008 at 9:39 am
Just had a sticky-beak over on Bolt’s blog, are these bloggers for real! as they jockey each other for Andrew’s attention–I have never seen so much brown-nose hysteria, as Bolta tells them some yearn and experience he had in some Hospital, in the Emergency Dept, check it out, you will want to vomit also, and they reckon he gets 300,000 dollars for this load of crapp.
Like an excited little school boy Rick, you just couldn’t wait to run home and tell Mum what the other kids are doing in the playground!
I bet you wake up every morning with excited anticipation of reading Bolt’s blog.
29 August, 2008 at 10:00 am
Much like Pippers excitement to see what’s going on here.
Why do trolls have so much spare time?
29 August, 2008 at 10:07 am
Trolls have no friends, like the bitter and lonely Bolt bloggers.
And Rick they certainly do clamber.
Emergency Department = Global Warming Hysteria
Sickness obviously had no effect on Bolt’s frontal lobe…
29 August, 2008 at 10:08 am
Much like Pippers excitement to see what’s going on here.
Why do trolls have so much spare time?
Only problem with that Michael is that I am not running off to other blogs with excitement, telling others to rush back here and join in the mock outrage at what has been written.
29 August, 2008 at 10:11 am
Trolls have no friends, like the bitter and lonely Bolt bloggers.
And Rick they certainly do clamber
Is that a personal dream of yours or is it just a sordid fantasy? But what the heck. If it comforts you at night what’s the shame in that? Right?
29 August, 2008 at 10:19 am
That’s what we’re here for Rick – providing an alternative outlet for commentary that either wouldn’t get a run at Bolt’s blog, or that would simply get swamped by the deluge of sychophants over there who respond to any opposing viewpoint with ridicule and hatred.
Mind you, you – your post above was met with hate and ridicule here as well, for which most here would apologise, but unfortunately we have a slight bolt-head infestation at the moment.
29 August, 2008 at 10:27 am
you might be right I don’t know why I go there..
I do.
I have nothing in common with nearly everyone of them…
No you’re much better off here where they all think as individuals.
“Yes Rick we are all individuals.”
29 August, 2008 at 10:29 am
swamped by the deluge of sychophants over there who respond to any opposing viewpoint with ridicule and hatred.
Oh cut it out Mondo. Its too early in the day for this much rib tickling.
Gotta go! Cant focus through the tears of hilarity.
29 August, 2008 at 10:33 am
swamped by the deluge of sychophants over there who respond to any opposing viewpoint with ridicule and hatred
that’s a very good description of this blog site.
29 August, 2008 at 10:33 am
Just had a sticky-beak over on Bolt’s blog, are these bloggers for real! as they jockey each other for Andrew’s attention–I have never seen so much brown-nose hysteria, as Bolta tells them some yearn and experience he had in some Hospital, in the Emergency Dept, check it out, you will want to vomit also, and they reckon he gets 300,000 dollars for this load of crapp.
Er—there are currently 2 (two) (II) comments.
Jockeying should be so competative.
29 August, 2008 at 10:35 am
At the risk (well, not risk – more of a certainty really) of inspiring more insipid dribble from Matt and Jimbo can I just say that I think Bolt has a reasonable column up today on the scaremongering of the Monington Shire.
Yes it is full of the standard junk idiocy about how AGW is fake – a position that we’ve probably done to death over here – but he does touch on an issue of substance in that he criticises the scaremongering being undertaken by some in the name of AGW. Putting aside the issue of whether AGW is desireable or not (it clearly isn’t), it is difficult to reconcile some of the claims made about the disasters that await us with what my common sense tells me. It doesn’t make sense to predict that 3.5 degree increases in average temperature in Melbourne will lead to thousands of additional deaths from heatwaves, just as it didn’t make sense for Robin Williams to predict 80m sea rises.
As someone who self-identifies as a sceptic about the AGW issue I find that my doubts arise mainly from the the clearly exaggerated claims made by the doom-merchants rather from any genuine doubt about the science. In other words it’s not that I’m sceptical about AGW happening – it’s mainly that I’m sceptical about the implications of it happening.
Does anyone else share this view or is it just me?
29 August, 2008 at 10:35 am
It’s a classic case of DeaniaL
29 August, 2008 at 10:39 am
Idlaviv,
You migh tbe right.
I only have personal knowledge of one such person who likes to buzz around on-line sites and say whatever it takes to annoy someone and then take pleasure in the reaction – a 50+ guy on a pension with minimal social contact, living by himself in a shed on a rural block.
Maybe that’s our little Pipper as well? In which case we should feel at least a little sorry for him and treat him kindly, despite the rabid rantings that pour from his befuddled mind.
29 August, 2008 at 10:43 am
Maybe that’s our little Pipper as well?
I had no idea Michael that you fantasised about what I looked like. Did you want me to tell you what I am wearing or are you also building that up in your fantasy as well?
29 August, 2008 at 10:49 am
Mondo,
I think we need to clear about the difference between a 3.5 deg average rise in temp and what that means for daily temps.
Some of the models show a significant increase in extreme maxima. So, you’re right that a 3.5 deg increase isn’t going to kill thousands, but large increases in the number of 40+ deg days certainly could.
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/science/hottopics/pubs/topic8.pdf
29 August, 2008 at 10:51 am
People, do not feed the trolls.
29 August, 2008 at 10:53 am
Some of the models show a significant increase in extreme maxima. So, you’re right that a 3.5 deg increase isn’t going to kill thousands, but large increases in the number of 40+ deg days certainly could
What a rediculious statement. Places like the southern states of the USA, tropics of Australia and the middle east regularly have dozens of more days over 40 C than we do and they do not have an increase in the number of deaths.
This is a classic statement of irrational hysteria peddled by the climate change evangalists.
29 August, 2008 at 10:55 am
As someone who self-identifies as a sceptic about the AGW issue …
Oh stop it its just too much.
29 August, 2008 at 10:57 am
Sometimes I wonder if these people have ever heard of air-conditioning.
29 August, 2008 at 10:57 am
Some of the models show a significant increase in extreme maxima.
I didn’t doubt for a second that Bolt’s focus on ‘average’ temperatures was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the substance of the models. Nonetheless I think my point remains true as a general statement – the AGW position is often significantly undermined by those who make wild claims about what ‘might’ happen in order to push whatever barrow they are currently interested in.
We don’t really need scare stories about the potential devastation of AGW to convince us of the necessity of recycling do we?
29 August, 2008 at 10:59 am
Me thinks self identification aint the only “self …” activity the mondo master partakes in.
I might be wrong there though.
What were you doin on dec 31 1999 Mondo?
29 August, 2008 at 11:00 am
Further to the heat-wave deaths issue, the 2003 heat-wave in France caused an estimated 14,000 deaths (mostly elderly).
The 2005 heatwave in the UK lead to an estimated 2000 excess deaths, again mostly among the elderly. That UK “heatwave” recorded a max. daytime temp of just 38 deg. Thirty-eight. That’s a typical summers day here!
29 August, 2008 at 11:02 am
What were you doin on dec 31 1999 Mondo?
I wonder if those on this blogsite called those that were sceptical of the Y2K bug, Y2K bug Denialists.
29 August, 2008 at 11:07 am
Further to the heat-wave deaths issue, the 2003 heat-wave in France caused an estimated 14,000 deaths (mostly elderly).
The 2005 heatwave in the UK lead to an estimated 2000 excess deaths
Notice how it is estimated deaths.
Will climate change evangelists stop at nothing to scare the population into stoping their evil carbon sins? Because if you don’t stop carbon sinning NOW, mother nature will strike you down in a heat infested death.
Michael, have you ever thought about going down to Central Station caring a sign saying “the end of the world is near”?
29 August, 2008 at 11:09 am
On a serious note Mondo.
You are of course right that the exagerations diminish the argument. I can’t however agree that this is often true. It should surely always be significant? What valid need for exageration is there if the science and the outcomes are so clear and obvious?
I don’t need to go the the grand canyon and exagerate the size of the hole in the ground do I?
I do however need to exagerate the enjoyment one gets from a night at the pokies, but only if I want to dupe people into the activity/belief.
Nobody needs to make a real threat seem worse.
29 August, 2008 at 11:10 am
I commented last night but it’s in the moderation queue because I put a couple of links. My main observation was that I spent a decent chunk of time catching up on the comments here, only to find that the “falsificationists” have failed to advance their argument an inch – despite being asked direct questions and challenged on their repetitive yet flawed assertions. Now it seems we have some outright monkeys flying around this morning. And yet there still isn’t anything to actually respond to.
Idlaviv, thanks for the thumbs-up on my posting about Bolt’s DNC reports. It’s getting pretty funny watching the neocons at Bolt’s blog try to repel the paleocons coming in from Alex Jones’s site – while they all still think their opponents are “Teh Left”. Darryl Mason has tried injecting some facts over there as well, but it seems the hardcore crowd are impervious to them.
29 August, 2008 at 11:11 am
The term denialist is specifically chosen to undermine the scepticism and parallel it with holocaust denial Rad.
Its one of the exagerations of which I spoke above.
29 August, 2008 at 11:14 am
Mondo,
I think that the implications need to be spelt out, because they often aren’t clear. It’s quite easy to say – hey, it’s just 3 degrees, sounds lovely. That kinda makes sense if you don’ think about it too much. Translating it into actual impacts does help us to understand the signifcance of those otherwise seemingly innocuous numbers.
And what at times seem to be “scare stories” (eg deaths in Melbourne from heatwaves due to a 3.5 deg increase in average temps), are in fact quite reasonable, once fully explained.
29 August, 2008 at 11:14 am
This all reminds me of that story A Current Affair did in July last year on Climate change where they claimed that Climate change was going to lead to Methane Fire balls raining down from the sky, killing thousands.
It was truly the height of the climate change hysteria.
http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Message.aspx?b=33&m=1912&ps=20&dm=1&pd=3
I suppose Michael still believes in these climate change methane fire balls?
29 August, 2008 at 11:15 am
Toby (as I recall he was a criminal)
“……the “falsificationists” have failed to advance their argument an inch – despite being asked direct questions and challenged on their repetitive yet flawed assertions. ”
Don’t be so harsh on DB and DbD and Mondo. They have little else to do in their lives.
29 August, 2008 at 11:20 am
Sophisticated humour there, Jim – up there with, “You are!!!”
I was referring to you and Rad, and the pointlessness of your posts.
29 August, 2008 at 11:32 am
Michael is right about the temperature and the fact that a rise in global temperature of x doesn’t translate into a uniform rise in all temperatures everywhere and at all times of x. Even looking at the global variation or distribution of the increase in global temperature demonstrates that you can’t expect temperature changes to be uniform. (e.g. consider that most of the earth is covered in ocean and that most of the larger shorter-term temperature variation therefore occurs over land).
Australia will be one of those locations that is hardest hit by this particular aspect.
A bit of an understanding of this can be gained from the IPCC faq area and in partcular at:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-10.1.html
29 August, 2008 at 11:37 am
It would appear Toby that you’re only here to tell us that. Thanks for the feedback.
What, other than the great feedback, do you actually have to add to the debate?
29 August, 2008 at 11:42 am
Why isn’t Husky Jim on permanent moderation, he contributes nothing? I’m wearing out my mouse scroll wheel skipping his posts to get to the reasonable (and in some cases excellent) posts.
Maybe his pots would make more sense if he used quotation marks (or italics) so that I can differentiate between what he’s quoting and what he’s saying..
29 August, 2008 at 11:57 am
Just ignore these clowns. They are here to get a rise, not engage in debate.
29 August, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Ok Fred thanks for the advice.
29 August, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I think that the implications need to be spelt out, because they often aren’t clear.
I absolutely agree – but those who wish to promote the seriousness of AGW need to be far more critical when they catch someone making an exaggerated or spurious claim about what “might” happen. These kind of hysterical claims are actually FAR more damaging to the AGW cause than fringe lunatic commentary by Bolt et-all, because they raise doubt in the minds of the public: “If that claim was bullshit, then how many other claims are bullshit?”
And what at times seem to be “scare stories” (eg deaths in Melbourne from heatwaves due to a 3.5 deg increase in average temps), are in fact quite reasonable, once fully explained.
I’m not in the slightest bit surprised to learn that Bolt is complely misrepresenting the facts to make his argument – the deaths resulting from the French heatwave are more than sufficient evidence to prove that he’s being as dishonest as usual – but you must admit that at least some of the scare stories peddled are exaggerated nonsense. For example Robin Williams should be utterly ashamed for the damage done with the ‘80 metre sea rise’ bullshit – that episode seriously damaged the credibility of the AGW movement.
I’d like to see the AGW scientists speaking out more to condemn the small fringe who are using AGW to make hysterical predictions. At the moment they seem focused entirely on addressing attacks from the right-wing ideologues – which is fine except that much of the ammunition being used by the deniers is coming directly from the exaggerations being made.
29 August, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I thought you were sceptical Mondo?
29 August, 2008 at 12:48 pm
HJ,
After the fountain of shit that has been your only contribution here and you and Rads childish, blatant trolling, you have the nerve to complain when moderation is called for?
You and Rad have been given far more ‘freedom of expression’ than you would have been granted at Bolts blog and have abused it.
Its obvious that you are simply flooding the site with bullshit to some how ‘win’ an argument that you have comprehensively LOST.
I agree with RobJ, fuck these clowns off.
29 August, 2008 at 12:52 pm
This thread so far has over 300 posts, now go over to bolts’ blog of shame. How many would one thread get over there?
And don’t worry about blairs, the poor lad has to come and post on here because he can’t get the post he used to when his old blog was unmoderated.
We’ve even got these trolls from Bolt posting here because, lets be honest, Andy is getting a bit boring. ( he use to be good for a laugh ) He keeps on repeating threads.
29 August, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Mondo, I’m in agreement with you – to an extent.
There is uncertainty in modelling/predicting the effects of global warming – arising both from uncertainty about specific parameters in the climate and because of uncertainty about future human behaviour.(e.g., CO2 emissions). So the prediction might be communicated in a few different ways – the average (i.e., the best guess), the anticipated worst case, or the anticipated best case.
The anticipated worst case appears to be a reasonably catastrophic outcome. Should it be communicated? Yes, but it has to be recognised that it is only a possibility. The best way to communicate things is to communicate the likely range of future outcomes – i.e., it could get this bed, or in the best case it could turn out like this. Reality is likely to fall somewhere in the middle. The IPCC report (and most scientific reporting) attempts to make this kind of interval estimate.
What is absolutely counterproductive is when predictions are made that go beyond the likely worst case. Those predictions are no more evidence-based than are the assertions that human activity has no impact on climate.
29 August, 2008 at 1:09 pm
What these prediction fail to factor in is human adaptation.
For example, if Melbourne was to see an average increase of 3.5 degrees over the next 100 years, it is more than enough time for the local population to adapt. Hence ruling out the dire predictions of 100’s dying from the heat.
For proof of this, look no further than cities that have already adapted to higher temperatures. Brisbane is, on average 4.5 degrees hotter than Melbourne. As such, Brisbane does not have a higher death rate from heat than Melbourne.
So to say that Melbourne will see an increase in heat related deaths because of a 3.5 degree increase in average temperatures over 100 years is total fiction.
As MRock rightly states, blatant scare mongering does not help the argument of those pushing the theory of AGW.
29 August, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Mondo,
You need to tread warily with Bolt-Reality (TM).
The initial comment was made by Mike Archer. Bolt raised it in an interview with Williams and challenged him if he believed it, to which Williams replied “It is possible”.
Which it is.
Is it probable? – well, that’s an entirely different matter.
And Archer’s comment was couched in very specific terms – “if the Greenland and Antarctica icesheets melt (which they are doing in spectacular fashion), sea levels could rise, ……..by 100 metres”
Caveats and qualifications matter little to Bolt when he has an axe to grind.
29 August, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Obviously a deluded character.
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/indiv/iarc_all_staff.php?photo=sakasofu
29 August, 2008 at 1:44 pm
What is absolutely counterproductive is when predictions are made that go beyond the likely worst case. Those predictions are no more evidence-based than are the assertions that human activity has no impact on climate.
That’s what I was trying to say – and I would add to that the issue of AGW ‘fatigue’, where it is over-used as a boogeyman to scare people into performing basic environmental tasks that really are quite unrelated to AGW.
For example, the validity of Bolt’s predictions about heat-related deaths aside, AGW is quite evidently an inappropriate tool to use as an incentive for local ratepayers to compost and recycle. These are primarily waste-disposal and resource issues which really have only an indirect connection to AGW.
29 August, 2008 at 1:45 pm
“You and Rad have been given far more ‘freedom of expression’ than you would have been granted at Bolts blog and have abused it.”
DbD
That’s quite simply a lie.Making you a liar sir.
If you were to bother to read the Bolt blog, there are many many views by the left and they are, in the main, the abusive character attacks we see here too. As far as i know you are free to express all opinion there, but not allowed to use the profanity you have above. If that’s moderation then I’m happy to see it, but if you have examples of people being banned simply for unwanted views you should post the evidence of that here right away.
29 August, 2008 at 1:47 pm
This thread so far has over 300 posts, now go over to bolts’ blog of shame. How many would one thread get over there?
Geoff.
Over there there are 10 threads a day. Here there is one a fortnight.
And if he’s so boring, why do you read every thread, every day?
29 August, 2008 at 1:53 pm
“You and Rad have been given far more ‘freedom of expression’ than you would have been granted at Bolts blog and have abused it.”
I agree, this is a blatant lie. Bolt has not moderated the likes of Barry bones, who has freely posted on his site. Even the likes of DeanL has posted freely.
So your desire to have us moderated is akin to totalitarian groupthink. You real wish is to crush anyone who disagrees with your point of view.
29 August, 2008 at 2:00 pm
You need to tread warily with Bolt-Reality (TM).
Aint that the truth. Occasionally I catch myself actually believeing something Bolt has written, only to be heartily embarrassed when it turns out (as it always does) that he’s totally misrepresented reality.
Bolt raised it in an interview with Williams and challenged him if he believed it, to which Williams replied “It is possible”.
Which it is.
My understanding is that it isn’t possible – that there isn’t enough water in the world to raise the sea-level by 80 metres. Either way the risk is clear. Scientists must be careful not to get involved in doomsday predictions as it has the potential to significantly distract from legitimate debate.
29 August, 2008 at 2:02 pm
‘For proof of this, look no further than cities that have already adapted to higher temperatures.’
This is probably true of cities Rad, you can always turn up the air conditioning and build a nuclear powered desal plant.
However, if we were to experience a 3.5 degree rise in average temperature it would have serious ramifications for agriculture in Australia, particularly in the mallee and the wheat belt.
Higher temperatures increase evaporation of moisture from soils and crops, as well as putting extra physical stress on animals and farm workers.
I have read predictions of a 10- 30% reduction in rainfall for inland areas which, if accurate, would turn a lot of southern Australias best cropping areas into marginal areas, and a lot of the more marginal cropping land would become useless for anything other than saltbush and sheep.
Irrigated agriculture would also suffer, as higher temperatures and dryer soils would reduce runoff to dams and river systems, meaning continued partial water allocations.
Consider the ramifcations for our countries economy if we do experience even the lower end of these predictions. It would reduce our exports and increase our reliance (and our spending) on imported agricultural products.
Some related articles
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T3W-4J4HH67-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b24ed9c41e46629290791cd00313784e
29 August, 2008 at 2:18 pm
This too. Put together by the CSIRO and Bureau of meteorology.
http://www.ioci.org.au/publications/pdf/IOCI_Notes_Series2.pdf
Shows a 10% reduction in rainfall in southern WA over last 30 years, resulting in a 40% reduction in runoff into rivers and lakes. Apparently this a direct result of a change in atmospheric circulation, thought to be caused partly by natural variability and partly enhanced greenhouse effect.
29 August, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Mmmmmm
Note how Mondo is able to disagree with a lefty and not call him a liar.
29 August, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Mondo,
Unfortunately, 100m sea-level rises are possible. It’s Archer’s background, (paleontology) that makes him aware of the dramatically different sea-levels that have existed in the past. To him, there’s is nothing strange about 100m sea-level rises as a concept, because that has been part of the planets previous realities.
Though, to avoid hysterical reactions by babbling idiots (eg Bolt) he could have said that this was a low-probability outcome.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
29 August, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I have been banned from the Bolt blog, for engaging in abuse. However, I didn’t engage in any abuse. I subsequently emailed Andrew several times to ask what my offending comment was, but he hasn’t told me. I wasn’t given any warning. There is abuse going on at his blog every day, so we can be sure he doesn’t actually care about it. I also have an email from Bolt in which he called me an idiot. So, no abuse at his blog, except if you support his rightwing groupthink. And he is happy to abuse people privately who disagree with him.
29 August, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I have been censored on numerous occasions.
I told him (and these are the exact words) he had a “barrow to push in regard to climate change”.
It got snipped and the response was that I was being abusive.
I rarely post there anymore. I used to enjoy stirring them up, but these days it’s more sad than anything. They are to be pitied.
29 August, 2008 at 4:32 pm
HJ “What, other than the great feedback, do you actually have to add to the debate?”
oh that is funny coming from the troll.
so far HJ has linked one profile of a scientist..
Still having issues finding the 10 scientists I asked you yesterday? You said you had read many reports.. have we seen anything of them? no.
if it smells like a troll, walks like a troll….
So far you have put up about 100 bullshit arguments without anything to back it up. Gee it would be good to see you i a cout of law representing yourself.. as they say a fool for a client.
29 August, 2008 at 4:33 pm
From the link provided by Michael:Most of the current global land ice mass is located in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (table 1). Complete melting of these ice sheets could lead to a sea-level rise of about 80 meters, whereas melting of all other glaciers could lead to a sea-level rise of only one-half meter.
Well there you go. If this information is correct then it is possible for the world’s oceans to rise by up to 80.5 metres.
I stand corrected re the impossibility of 80m sea-rises.
29 August, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Shane and Fred – I was banned as well for asking why my posts were not being included when I was asked questions by several others. The only thing that ever came up was that i was banned for bein abusive.. And frankly HJ has said about 10 times worse in this blog alone of others.
29 August, 2008 at 4:43 pm
The problem is that Bolt abhors real scepticism.
Science is sceptical – look for the evidence and withhold judgement until the weight of evidence is sufficiently in favour, and alternative explanations are poorly supported by the evidence.
Then there is the Bolt version of scepticism – loudly proclaim that you already know the ‘real’ truth, that all the experts (climate scientists publishing research in peer reviewed journals, and positively cited ad infinitum) are wrong, except for the non-expert experts (eg the journalists, the biologists, the retired ex-physicists who worked for Exxon), who are all completely right, then stick your fingers in your ears going “la la la la, no warming since ‘98,la la la la la la la la, the next ice age cometh, la la la la la la la la, north pole ice melting is a myth,la la la la la la la, I can’t hear you, la la la la la la la la la la la “.
29 August, 2008 at 5:14 pm
“I rarely post there anymore. I used to enjoy stirring them up, but these days it’s more sad than anything. They are to be pitied.”
I totally agree. They are truly pitiful and desperate. It’s a total shame so many of teh winged monkeys come over here, bored with Bolt’s postings. But then, this is where true intellectual debate and FREE SPEECH is allowed, so maybe they are seeing greener pastures? I can’t count the number of times I was snipped over there, as opposed to here where respectful dialogue is still allowed and is the order of the day.
29 August, 2008 at 8:47 pm
DbD I did this http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
I was between Ghandi and Nelson Mandela!!! Cool
29 August, 2008 at 11:03 pm
DB.
BULL!!!!!!
29 August, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Teh Right Collingwood supporters would be most displeased. What will the HUN write about now?
So sorry HJ & kDaics.
Always next decade…
30 August, 2008 at 6:49 am
I used to post on Bolts’ blog of shame but i got snipped so many times just for ( what i can work out because i am not abusive like most of his sheep ) disagreeing with him. It makes me laugh, when he babbles on about free speech.
Even some of Boltas’ desperados are posting here because Andy is becoming boring.
30 August, 2008 at 8:00 am
“I used to post on Bolts’ blog of shame but i got snipped so many times just for ( what i can work out because i am not abusive like most of his sheep )”
Well you came to the right place. We won’t tolerate teh abuse of the winged monkeys, here. And as I said, this is a place for free speech. So feel free to call anyone who seems conservative a fuckwit. It’s allowed here and it’s not abuse as they have no souls anyway, so it doesn’t count.
30 August, 2008 at 12:20 pm
All comments by and regarding Rick and SUZI have been deleted — it’s that fuckwit Richard Ryan, who has been posting at least eight deranged comments a day and trying all sorts of things to get past the site’s spam filter.
And Left Goog, your comments are now being moderated. Childish attempts to stir shit, like your last two posts, will not be tolerated. Contribute something useful or fuck off.
PS: People like you don’t get called fuckwits because you’re conservative — it’s because you behave like fuckwits. Pretty difficult to comprehend, isn’t it?
30 August, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Looks like RR’s been doing the same thing – and getting the same treatment – over at Tim’s site. Groupthink!
30 August, 2008 at 1:14 pm
There’s a substantial element of the Peter Hore about a few of these visitors of late. Although, sadly, they’re even less courageous than that git because they serial pesting is done via the blogosphere.
30 August, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Interesting article regarding the potential for armed conflict, border protection issues and global food shortages as a result of global warming. Apparently the US and UK military are shitting themselves. (my words, not theirs!)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/25/2345829.htm
Adapted from interview (on 25/8/08) with US military analyst and author, Dr. Gwynne Dyer.
30 August, 2008 at 3:04 pm
The Libs are keeping up with their campaign of economic vandalism, now shifting the battle to the states.
The QLD opposition are calling for a permanent ban on oil shale mining near Prosperine, despite a potential 1.6 billion barrels of oil over 40 years, and a chance to reduce our reliance on imports.
BTW i personally think the ban should be permanent, but its pretty funny when the Libs and Nats start using environmental concerns as an excuse to throw a spanner in the works of state Labor. (or chase the ‘not in my backyard’ vote perhaps?
Almost as funny as the NSW Libs opposing the privatisation of power generation. It makes sence that some Labor members would find this an uncomfortable proposition, but the conservatives opposing privatisation in defence of state owned utilities? Very odd.
It really makes me wonder what grounds the conservatives have for claiming ‘managing the economy’ as their strong point over Labor when they seem quite happy to sabotage Australia’s economy for political gain.
30 August, 2008 at 5:20 pm
In Queensland the Lib and Nats are now the LNP – Liberal National Party. But yeah every bit of disruption the bring State Labor get the blame.
30 August, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Jesus Daics relax. I am a law student NOT an intellectual. I was not attempting to claim some scientific highground from which to repel lesser mortals. I was just saying I have a little experience and see merit in the precautionary principle. Is that irrational? Sorry for having an opinion that fails to reach your heady standards.
As to the lack of intellectual substance in my post, I could care less. I save my miniscule brainpower for my assignments. All I said was Bolt never proves his statements all the while applying the blowtorch to his particular target. It pisses me off no end.
And to top it off you ‘lambast’ Chris and add nothing to the fabric of the debate at all yourself. I would prefer if you saved yourself the trouble of passing judgment on my comments.
30 August, 2008 at 7:00 pm
bolta having conniptions about a story that sarah palin’s youngest baby might not be hers but her daughter’s. “Vile, vile, vile” shrieks andy, blaming it of course on the left. funny, when it was catherine deveny’s ‘bipolar’ it was ok to bring it to the world attention despite the very suspect circumstances. but this, even though andy’s link says “…although in many ways this falls into the “none of our business category”.
fucking hypacrite!
30 August, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Agreed, confessions, and I’ve just left a comment asking him to explain the ethical distinction between his reporting of hearsay and this case (while agreeing that the “report” in this case looks to be a rumour with nothing substantial to back it up).
30 August, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Haven’t seen anything from Andy on the Arctic sea ice for a while now. I wonder why:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/about_that_arctic_sea_ice.php
…
30 August, 2008 at 9:48 pm
…might be something to do with this sobering graphic:
http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
31 August, 2008 at 9:14 am
i was thinking that too dean. more on the ice melt:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/27/a-catastrophe-in-slow-motion-sea-ice-updates/
31 August, 2008 at 9:22 am
Cripes.
Bolt, Milne & Abbott on ‘Insiders’.
Where’s a ‘Rage’, guest programmed by Nana Mouskouri, when you need one?
31 August, 2008 at 10:11 am
LOL!! and milne, bolt and cassidy all wearing similar shirts. usually you can spot glenn milne with his costello obsession, but andy beat him today on that score.
31 August, 2008 at 11:35 am
‘In Queensland the Lib and Nats are now the LNP – Liberal National Party.’
Oops! I forgot.
But really, what in a name?
I will use the fact that i got home from work at 11am and spent the day drinking beer as an excuse!
31 August, 2008 at 11:59 am
One of the comments on the Deltoid article indicated that this information regarding sea ice has been presented to Bolt with a ‘please explain’, but was ‘lost in moderation’
Have you attempted to post this on Bolts blog Dean? And did it also vanish into the ether?
31 August, 2008 at 12:49 pm
DbD,
I’ve pretty much given up posting at Bolt’s. There is no point now. Whilst I disagree with the view that Bolt’s moderation levels are inappropriate – it’s his blog and no one has to put up with being heckled; and that’s what a lot of the contrarian posting amounts to. But he doesn’t answer or respond – unless he can make an easy points score against a silly comment from a detractor.
And, even if someone makes a valid point against him, his tactic now is just to allow his sycophants to attack them – whether the counterpoints they make are valid or not.
Worse, he never ever pulls someone into line or corrects them if and when they post a supporting comment – even if it’s outrageously incorrect (the most he has done is express a general concern about the tone of the posting when the homophobic posting became embarrassing for even him).
Bolt has backed himself into a corner in almost every issue he raises now – even if he offers an objective view (a rarity), he knows he can’t stay on it for more than one post or his “fans” will just desert him. Imagine if Bolt announced that, “I’ve come to believe that AGW is a real issue that has to be dealt with.”; or: “I’ve come to the conclusion that I was wrong on Iraq.” How could he possibly do this? If I know one thing about Bolt, I know that there’s not a single part of Bolt that would allow him to admit he’s wrong – on anything. I’ve never seen him do it, except in that musing sort of way, which is generally his way of saying “I was wrong about being wrong.” See the latest post on Pallin for a perfect example.
Groupthink does indeed capture people and take away their ability to think for themselves. Of course Bolt doesn’t believe he could possibly have cultivated a Groupthink Tank. If you and your’s are right about everything, how can you be accused of Groupthink?
31 August, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Bolt yesterday:
“The case against Haneef, as presented to court, seemed at times to go beyond the evidence, as did the Howard Government pronouncements. And the AFP seemed to be keener in the end to justify itself than to simply establish the boring facts.”
True. Well done Andrew.
However…”No great scandal, in the end”
What! The federal government interfering in a police investigation to gain political advantage in the run up to an election is ‘no great scandal?’
Bolt considers Rudd visiting a strip joint a newsworthy scandal, yet is so blase about high level corruption in the Liberal party.
Fucking unbelievable!
31 August, 2008 at 1:54 pm
“I’ve pretty much given up posting at Bolt’s. There is no point now.”
Why is there no point?
Because “….no one has to put up with being heckled; and that’s what a lot of the contrarian posting amounts to…”
So you were heckling ?
“And, even if someone makes a valid point against him, his tactic now is just to allow his sycophants to attack them – whether the counterpoints they make are valid or not.”
So what you want is for him to respond to your hecking in person?
Funny, but neither of the two mulahs here seem to respond to their arguments being examined either. They leave you fine chaps to trot out the ….tard and troll labels. This you approve of?
And there are how many examples of them ever pulling someone into line or corrects them if and when they post a supporting comment – even if it’s outrageously incorrect?
“Imagine if Bolt announced that, “I’ve come to believe that AGW is a real issue that has to be dealt with.”; or: “I’ve come to the conclusion that I was wrong on Iraq.” How could he possibly do this?”
Why would he possibly do this?
Isn’t it wonderful that the left are convinced that Bolt actually agrees with them, but only says otherwise to save face.
Yet the right is delusional somehow?
“If I know one thing about Bolt, I know that there’s not a single part of Bolt that would allow him to admit he’s wrong – on anything. ”
Of course you’ll post a dozen links to where you have or Marr, Adams, Pilger, Singer, Flannery et al have. Admitted being wrong that is.
“Groupthink does indeed capture people and take away their ability to think for themselves.”
But not here?
“If you and your’s are right about everything, how can you be accused of Groupthink?”
Oh well !!! That’ll be the reason why then.
31 August, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Good post dean.
I dont bother much anymore either.
However, i do sometimes think his level of moderation is over the top. Not for removing abusive comments or permanent moderation for regular trolls (as Boltwatch has had to do on occasion) but for the automatic moderation of all comments, and the snipping of comments for length, which slow down any conversation or debate to a snails pace and encourages one paragraph ‘gotchas’
It also allows him to avoid scrutiny to an extent.
Although as you say, it is his blog after all he can do what he wants, and i suppose no one asked me to post there!
31 August, 2008 at 2:15 pm
“the homophobic posting became embarrassing for him”
Yes, Bolts views on homosexuality do seem to clash somewhat with those of many of his fans.
I was once actually quite impressed by Bolt, when he supported gay students having the right to take their partners to a school formal.
I heard from a friend of a friend (so quite possibly total bullshit) that Bolt’s sister is gay and he was not invited to her ‘wedding’ Apparently she refuses to have anything to do with him.
Sad for him, if its true.
31 August, 2008 at 2:56 pm
DbD
To pretend to have compassion is worse than to honestly exhibit none.
31 August, 2008 at 3:23 pm
My mother is gay, i have been to several same sex weddings and i do feel sorry that Andrew is estranged from his sister over such a petty thing as her sexuality.
However do feel free to keep projecting your own negative feelings and behaviours onto me, you even have my permission to argue with me while im not here.
I don’t mind.
31 August, 2008 at 3:27 pm
“To pretend to have compassion is worse than to honestly exhibit none.”
And yet it complains about being called a troll.
31 August, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I’ve come to much the same conclusion as Dean in terms of commenting on Bolt’s blog – generally, it’s not worth the effort, because (i) Andrew himself will ignore any comments other than one he can “gotcha!”, (ii) the hardcore conservatives won’t come close to responding to the substance of my argument, and (iii) the moderation system is so sluggish and haphazard that you can’t attempt to pin someone down on an issue (because half a dozen red herrings will have been thrown up in the meanwhile).
Interestingly, comment moderation appears to be completely stalled over there today – he posted an open thread and some other stuff this morning that still shows zero comments. No response to my comment (or the others) pointing out his hypocrisy on calling the Daily Kos diary “vile” for rumour-mongering, and no substantive responses from anyone else.
31 August, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Looks like all of the News.com.au blogs are having problems today. Timmeh was going to liveblog “Scorched” tonight – maybe Al Gore broke his Internets to prevent it.
31 August, 2008 at 9:23 pm
“I heard from a friend of a friend (so quite possibly total bullshit) that Bolt’s sister is gay and he was not invited to her ‘wedding’ Apparently she refuses to have anything to do with him.”
You note it’s possibly total bullshit… and yet you post it anyway. What a fuckwit.
31 August, 2008 at 11:19 pm
It’s possibly total bullshit… and yet I post it anyway.
Bolt’s next book title…
1 September, 2008 at 6:42 am
From Reco….you note it’s possibly bullshit, and yet you post it anyway……
Remind you of anyone? Namely Bolta?
1 September, 2008 at 7:43 am
No response to my comment (or the others) pointing out his hypocrisy on calling the Daily Kos diary “vile” for rumour-mongering, and no substantive responses from anyone else
Daily Kos IS vile for running trash tabloid crap about Sarah Palin. Surely Tobias, you weren’t trying to rationalise what they have claimed by trying to launch an attack on Bolt?!
1 September, 2008 at 8:30 am
Rad, instead of trying for a “gotcha!”, go and read my comment on Bolt’s blog and you can see exactly what I was arguing. Once you have, feel free to take issue with anything I actually said, and I’ll be happy to defend it. Until then, stop wasting people’s time with your hypocritical bullshit.
1 September, 2008 at 9:46 am
bolts blog hasnt had any comments for 24 hours and his search function is broken, i blame the cult of AGW
1 September, 2008 at 10:23 am
DbD
Pretending your mother is Gay so you can pretend to be compassionate about something you’re pretty sure is bullshit is below contempt.
Just thought I’d point that out.
Not looking for an argument.
1 September, 2008 at 10:26 am
Toby.
Not too sure why a blog set up to be critical of Bolt and Blair needs to have FYIs of helpdesk issues.
1 September, 2008 at 10:35 am
And I’m not sure why it needs suckholes who come here spoiling for a fight, despite your disingenuous claim to the contrary in your second-to-last comment, Husky.
Keep it civil and relevant. You’ve given enough people the shits of late, and bullshit like the above will not be tolerated.
1 September, 2008 at 11:09 am
Ok Angry insect.
The fact that I don’t agree with you people is basically going to give you the shits anyway. Its indicative of your mindset that you created and maintain a website dedicated to the smeering of conservative expression and particularly two prominant columnests. We get it Ant, the right give you the shits.
I realise that you’re not comfortable with people having an opinion that differs too broadly from your’s, but if you’re going to set up a website dedicated to hate mail, you’re going to attract people that don’t agree with either the way that you express your opinions and/or the opinions themselves. The fact that your minion here express themselves in a robust and forthright manner is fine with me and from the term “suckhole” used above, its Ok with you too. Why not then accept that those not in your troupe will express themselves in a similar manner. Why not accept that if a poster expresses contempt for a man by smeering his sister’s possible sexuality and their relationship based on that “maybe”, that someone might bring them to task in a similar vain?
1 September, 2008 at 11:15 am
a bolthead replies to tobias’s point that Bolt had no problem spreading unconfirmed rumours about the mental health of a certain age collumnist
“As for Andrew’s comments Re: Deveny. They commenced with “If it’s true…”
Secondly, he wished her well, he didn’t try and smear her.
There’s a big difference. hmmm ”
Also called for her to be sacked based purely on an anonymous blog post
1 September, 2008 at 11:19 am
The fact that I don’t agree with you people is basically going to give you the shits anyway.
Nonsense. It’s fuckwits who give people the shits here, not conservatives. I haven’t objected to conservative views being posted at this site, nor simply contrarian views — just the kind of rubbish you posted above, attacking the veracity of another commenter’s post about his mother’s sexuality. That elicited, for memory, what has been your first formal warning for troll-like behaviour.
Get it, dickhead?
The rest of your post follows in a similarly idiotic, sanctimonious and disingenuous vein, and warrants no comment.
State your views, debate in good faith and post away to your heart’s content. But you’ll be placed on moderation — like a handful of commenters before you — should you continue to behave like a snide, petulant wanker.
1 September, 2008 at 11:19 am
Also called for her to be sacked based purely on an anonymous blog post
Now that is a blatant, deceptive lie.
Bolt did no such thing. He expressed his concern that an employer may expect an employee working with a metal disorder to continue to meet full expectations of work. Bolt was suggesting that if it was true, she should be given time off work to seek treatment.
1 September, 2008 at 11:45 am
I have responded to the comment at Bolt’s blog, whenever it manages to get through their moderation.
I thought Bolt’s post about Deveny was ambiguous in terms of what he was suggesting Fairfax should do. But even assuming that Rad’s interpretation of what he meant is right, my issue is that he posted an unconfirmed report and used it to question the integrity of The Age/Fairfax.
That is why I can’t see a distinction between his behaviour and the post at Daily Kos. And that is setting aside the fact that he is ostensibly a journalist while the Daily Kos message was by a diarist (i.e., not an official spokesperson for the site) – arguably, he could be expected to conform to a higher standard.
1 September, 2008 at 11:46 am
Rad Pipper, the proven liar, accusing others of lying!
http://blairboltwatch.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/backhanded-sympathy/#comment-8590
Some people have no shame.
1 September, 2008 at 11:51 am
“It’s fuckwits who give people the shits here, not conservatives.”
Ant. I seriously doubt you have the ability to distinguish, otherwise your practice self sensorship.
1 September, 2008 at 11:53 am
“Now that is a blatant, deceptive lie.
Bolt did no such thing. He expressed his concern that an employer may expect an employee working with a metal disorder to continue to meet full expectations of work. Bolt was suggesting that if it was true, she should be given time off work to seek treatment.”
Where did he say that?
1 September, 2008 at 11:58 am
Ant. I seriously doubt you have the ability to distinguish, otherwise your practice self sensorship.
Great sentence. And exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about, incidentally.
1 September, 2008 at 11:58 am
That is why I can’t see a distinction between his behaviour and the post at Daily Kos. And that is setting aside the fact that he is ostensibly a journalist while the Daily Kos message was by a diarist (i.e., not an official spokesperson for the site) – arguably, he could be expected to conform to a higher standard
The difference being that bolt made it clear that he was reference a post from someone who had herd Deveny speak publicly in Daylesford.
Daily Kos is openly making innuendo about her child, questioning the birth mother on a weak assumption. It is extremely vile that someone would claim that a person’s child is really their teenager’s child on an assumption that announcing your pregnancy at 7 months.
At least bolt has evidence of hear say, daily Kos is just making up vicious rumour out of weak assumption.
1 September, 2008 at 11:58 am
I seriously doubt you have the ability to distinguish
I seriously doubt anyone does. But that seems a bit harsh on Conservatives!
1 September, 2008 at 11:59 am
Some people have no shame
Is that right DeaniaL.
1 September, 2008 at 12:02 pm
“…attacking the veracity of another commenter’s post about his mother’s sexuality.”
Clearly this is my point Ant.
That very same commenter smeered Bolt on the rumour of a rumour that he admitted was more than likely a lie. His claim re his mother is in a similar vein to “many of my best friends are Jews”. You might accept it, but the commenter in question has admitted that the truth is inconsequential to his arguments, so I chose not to.
You have a commenter with whom you agree, blatently calling someone (who you wouldn’t agree with) a liar above. This has happened for the past week (probably longer from the tone)and you have issued no corresponding threat re relevence or good faith. You are exhibiting clear bias. A prerequisite for the left.
1 September, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Is that right DeaniaL.
I’m so hurt and dismayed by this ever-so-droll piece of wit and cleverness that has been copied from someone else.
Actually, I don’t know what it means but, I just know it must be hurtful…somehow.
Why can’t we at least have some trolls with IQs higher than their shoe size?
1 September, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Where did he say that?
where did he say that she should be sacked?
1 September, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Sarah Palin – a ‘f**kwit conservative’.
Surely there can be no better example.
A creationist, pro-lifer, NRA member, who enjoys hunting Alaskan bears from a helicopter.
F.*.*.K.W.I.T.
1 September, 2008 at 12:14 pm
sarah palin reminds me of pauline hanson – the potential to isolate more voters than she appeals to. a very brave choice by mccain. time will tell if she has the goods, but she is so very very inexperienced.
1 September, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Sarah Palin – a ‘f**kwit conservative’.
Surely there can be no better example
Ouch. What’s with the rabid hate?
It’s one thing to disagree with what someone stands for, but it is a whole other thing to rabidly hate them.
1 September, 2008 at 12:17 pm
sarah palin reminds me of pauline hanson – the potential to isolate more voters than she appeals to. a very brave choice by mccain. time will tell if she has the goods, but she is so very very inexperienced
LOL You obviously don’t know much about the American voter.
Like McCain, she has a history of standing up to fellow republicans and challenging them. So it is actually a logical choice for McCain as she is very similar to him.
1 September, 2008 at 12:21 pm
“Ant. I seriously doubt you have the ability to distinguish, otherwise your practice self sensorship.”
Look on the bright side, you semi-literate, syntax-challenged troll – if the moderation of this board was half as totalitarian as it is at Bolt’s, you would’ve been banned ages ago. At least you can continue to make contributions here, as worthless as they may be.
1 September, 2008 at 12:36 pm
“Like McCain, she has a history of standing up to fellow republicans and challenging them. So it is actually a logical choice for McCain as she is very similar to him.”
McCain is so going to tap that
“where did he say that she should be sacked?”
“should not be kept in harness by a newspaper hoping to win extra sales from her growing despair. ”
ie, calling for fairfax to release her from employment. in other words the sack
1 September, 2008 at 12:42 pm
ie, calling for fairfax to release her from employment. in other words the sack
That is not what Bolt says.
should not be kept in harness by a newspaper hoping to win extra sales from her growing despair.
since when has should not be kept in harness ever referred to being sacked. No where does that sentence say she should be sacked.
1 September, 2008 at 12:43 pm
actually i think the palin appointment was because she is very different to mccain. he needed to shore up his own party’s vote as there are plenty conservatives who didn’t like him, now they have one of their own to vote for. he might portray her as like him and reformist etc but that wasn’t why she was chosen for VP in the first place.
1 September, 2008 at 12:45 pm
What happened here?
I thought most of us were doing a reasonable job of ignoring the trolls – but I suppose its a new week and so everyone is filled with new hope that their interaction with Matt and Jim will yield different results. It won’t, of course, as can already be seen above, but I totally understand the need to respond. I mean, one can only tolerate so much sniping from the sidelines until some kind of reaction becomes necessary.
But I’m afraid that’s it for me. I think I’ll voluntarily remove myself from the game and seek out greener pastures.
Matt – well played, and good luck with the trolling mate. Depending on how carefully you dance around this site’s rules you might get an even longer run here than you did at Lefty’s. You certainly earned your stripes over there!
And good luck to the rest of you – my personal aversion to masochism won’t prevent me from enjoying the substance of your contributions from the sidelines.
1 September, 2008 at 12:49 pm
actually i think the palin appointment was because she is very different to mccain. he needed to shore up his own party’s vote as there are plenty conservatives who didn’t like him, now they have one of their own to vote for. he might portray her as like him and reformist etc but that wasn’t why she was chosen for VP in the first place.
She is only different as far as appeal to the religious right of the party. But she is very much the same in being a republican that isn’t afraid to stand up to the republican party.
This is the more important factor as it is political poison for McCain to be associated too closely with the very unpopular George Bush. McCain needs to come across as a new kind of republican leader that is different to those of the past 25 years. He clearly does and with palin as VP, it re-enforces this point.
1 September, 2008 at 12:49 pm
McCain is so going to tap that
Priceless.
I loved John Stewart saying “John McCain introduced the world to his third wife.”
1 September, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Fair enough, Rad – you have managed to set out what you consider the boundary to be for ethical reporting. So, based on this reasoning, if a person reads somewhere on the Internet that a person saw or heard something, it is appropriate for them to report and comment on that information (provided they note that it is unconfirmed). If anyone on the Left was to do the same, you would have no grounds to criticise them.
That’s a perfectly coherent position, and I thank you for responding to the issue. I am still hopeful that Andrew will do the same.
1 September, 2008 at 1:02 pm
One word – creationist.
1 September, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Mondo,
Sorry to hear you’re stepping out of the discussion here. I’m taking an approach of playing the ball and not the man – if anyone is willing to make a substantive argument on the issues, I’ll respond, but the trolling (even if it’s the same person) will be ignored.
1 September, 2008 at 1:07 pm
One word – creationist.
And your point being?
1 September, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Fair enough, Rad – you have managed to set out what you consider the boundary to be for ethical reporting
Just so we are clear, I am not saying what Bolt wrote about Deveny was a smart thing. Personally I think it is more aligned with unsavoury gossip rather than defamation.
But what Daily Kos has done is very different. It was cruel and deliberately designed to defame her.
1 September, 2008 at 1:21 pm
My point being that if you’re looking for someone who is a fundie and anti-science, you can’t go wrong with a creationist.
1 September, 2008 at 1:23 pm
My point being that if you’re looking for someone who is a fundie and anti-science, you can’t go wrong with a creationist
How is that different from anyone from any other religion.
Would you say the same thing about muslims?
1 September, 2008 at 1:30 pm
About a fundie muslim, yes I would.
1 September, 2008 at 1:32 pm
About a fundie muslim, yes I would
How do you define a fundie?
1 September, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I tell you what, go and look up the definition of fundamentalist and come back to us all when you have it.
1 September, 2008 at 1:56 pm
where will we be in 5 minutes… “define definition”??
1 September, 2008 at 1:58 pm
HJ – You have had the weekend. Any luck in finding those list of 10 scientists making up part of the “many” you suggested last week?
1 September, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Husky Jim.
Im glad you took my advice and projected your own feelings onto me. It makes it all the more obvious what an ugly and hate filled person you are.
I mentioned that Bolts views on homosexuality were out of step with those of many conservatives, in that he is quite reasonable. My comments on his sisters sexuality were merely an aside, and only relevant in that it may be an explanation of his moderate view on the issue. Perhaps i didnt make that clear. Sorry.
I would however like to address your personal abuse of me, and your obvious failings as a man.
Husky Jims failings as a man #1.
He is a homophobe
You describe my commenting on this rumor as a ’smeer’ of Bolts good name. The comment is only a smear if you think being gay is a bad thing, which from your comments you obviously do.
Husky Jims failings as a man #2.
He is falsely compassionate.
You accuse me of false compassion.
Again, you project your own feelings onto me.
I expressed approval for Bolts views on an issue, I question why he may be less conservative on this issue than most of his readers, and expressed pity for him and his sister (quite genuinely) if this rumor was true. Based on what i have written the only possible reason for you to accuse me false compassion because that is how you yourself would behave in this situation.
Husky Jims failings as a man #3.
He is a liar.
You claim to not be looking for an argument, then proceed to pick one. Your statement “if a poster expresses contempt for a man by smeering his sister’s possible sexuality” is complete fantasy. I did not in any way express contempt for Bolt or his sister in this post. I have many times expressed contempt for him in other posts, but what you are accusing me of is simply untrue.
HJ’s failings as a man # 4
He is a hypocrite.
You complain in a post to ant that someone who dissagrees with ‘teh left’ such as yourself would not get away with baselessly accusing another poster of being a liar, and of bias in this site.
Husky_Jim
29 August, 2008 at 1:45 pm
“…That’s quite simply a lie.Making you a liar sir.”
You also contantly demand evidence and links from others , while providing none yourself.
So HJ, you are a homophobic, falsely compassionate, hypocritical liar.
It must be great to be you.
Do not bother to address me again. Im simply not interested.
Sorry all, for devoting such a lot of space to such a worthless topic as HJ. It will not happen again.
1 September, 2008 at 2:05 pm
where will we be in 5 minutes… “define definition”??
LOL, you are just a barrel of laughs DBoP.
Being an athiest myself, I really don’t see any difference between sarah palin and Kevin rudd or even Obama as far as Christianity is concerned. I was just trying to determine if sKeptic only had a problem with republican Christians.
Obama is also a creationist. Basically most Christians are. If they weren’t, then they would be Agnostic or atheist.
1 September, 2008 at 2:22 pm
While we’re all being argumentative, that would be a fallacy of composition Rad.
1 September, 2008 at 2:26 pm
On the EIGHTH day GOD creationitted™ a mindless Troll named Matt.
Don’t feed him…
1 September, 2008 at 2:27 pm
While we’re all being argumentative, that would be a fallacy of composition Rad
As far as I know, all Christians believe that God created the universe. That’s creationism. Even those that believe in intelligent design, believe that it was god’s creation.
1 September, 2008 at 3:31 pm
As far as I know, all Christians believe that God created the universe.
Well, saying “all” removes the fallacy of composition I suppose. Now you’re just wrong. And still argumentative I see…
1 September, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I am an Atheist and proud of it.
mighty matt | 04.04.07 – 4:09 pm |
1 September, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Man created GOD, man also created Heaven and Hell to keep other men in line. The sooner we can get passes religion the sooner we can be really liberated.
1 September, 2008 at 4:23 pm
I’m jewish and so is my wife …
1 September, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Please ignore my last comment, I had the quote wrong, which should be “I’m Brian and so is my wife” but it doesn’t really work for this thread.
Surely I have some work to do.
1 September, 2008 at 4:28 pm
DbD
As you are currently under the protection of the Ant you may never get to read this, but I am happy to address your “criticisms” of my manhood. Despit the fact you’re not going to address them.
Not that a general or even a particular disagreement qualifies as a failing as a man in any manner that cultured folks see important, but as you have chosen this as a field of battle then on your head be the soil of that field. No matter how foul.
Husky Jims failings as a man #1. (sic)
It was you who gratuitously used the “information” that Bolt’s sister is gay not I. In fact you didn’t offer it as information did you? You said it was a rumor you had heard, but that you were not prepared to believe. Despite it being “total bullshit” you used it anyway. To smear Bolt. Not with the fact that his sister is (or might be if one is prepared to accept the “total bullshit” scuttlebut) gay, but with the fact that in the Bolt family, this is a cause of estrangement. In other words, Bolt’s family is breaking down because his sister “may be” gay. Or Bolt’s support of gay students is false because he’s so homophobic that even his gay sister “refuses to have anything to do with him.”
Husky Jims failings as a man #2 (sic)
You claim that you “…expressed pity for him and his sister (quite genuinely) if this rumor was true.” As if putting it in a bracket (somehow makes it true). You expressed no such pitty as your intention was to present Bolt as disingenuous, because the “real story” (though total bullshit) is that his sister hates him because he’s such a homophobe. Even sarcastically saying you were “…..quite impressed by Bolt, when he supported gay students having the right to take their partners to a school formal”
I myself would never be so vile as to smear a man simply on the “total bullshit” rumor that he and his sister are estranged due to her sexual inclinations.
Husky Jims failings as a man #3. (sic)
No you didn’t express contempt for Bolt. Not overtly anyway. You’ve been much cleverer than that and made a slur on the man without actually saying anything. Then you can say “who me, I never touched him.” Like Barry Hall smashing Bret Staker’s face in and claiming he never touched him. READ ABOVE for the ‘never touched him’ moment.
And while we’re on the subject of lying, if you don’t mind that I argue with you then why are you now so offended that I might want to?
HJ’s failings as a man # 4
I did say that and I stand by it. The proof is that Ant thinks I called you a liar, which I also stand by, (your mother is gay yeah right!!!) and he’s restricted comment from me to his approval , yet good old DeaniaL gets to abuse Rad as “matt” and call him a liar without censure.
Who exactly is hypocritical here?
1 September, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Wow 400 plus comments.
1 September, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Not many of them related to the original post, though. I suspect it’s a sign of the fact that Blair and Bolt just keep on repeating the same tired old crap (“Look, it’s cold outside!”, “Look, it’s a bogan!”, “Look, it’s a Muslim!”, “Look, Barack Obama is a tool!”, etc.) – there’s not a lot of new material to post about at the moment.
1 September, 2008 at 8:50 pm
“Tazzz replied to Willt
Sat 30 Aug 08 (04:15pm)
Oh go back to Tim Dunlop. The fact that you don’t like her is a positive. Of course you wouldn’t like her. She has five kids. You prefer to see them in green shopping bags to save the world. ”
From Bolt’s Sarah Palin thread, wow.
1 September, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Most of the comments do go off topic. There is the whole Sarah Palin thing to post about now. When I read Andy today all I could think is “Has he convinced himself about Sarah Palin being a good thing yet?” I get the feeling that the person he is trying hardest to sell on this Sarah Palin thing is himself. Hence the faux outrage at the suggestion that the baby is her grand daughter, he is trying to distract from her obvious lack of ability to do the job.
1 September, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Dbd:
You also contantly demand evidence and links from others , while providing none yourself.
Husky:
Despite it being “total bullshit” you used it anyway.
So Husky…
D’ya know somethin’ we don’t?
Wanna share some of your “total bullshit” evidence’?
Didn’t think so.
2 September, 2008 at 7:01 am
Noticed those couple of trolls are still here, don’t feed them people. They are both part of the Bolt fanclub, nothing wrong with that but their job is to come here, give everyone the shits, hoping we will go. ( shut down debate, as is the way of the far right )
Has anyone realised they just go around and around and around, just to disagree.
2 September, 2008 at 7:57 am
Hence the faux outrage at the suggestion that the baby is her grand daughter, he is trying to distract from her obvious lack of ability to do the job
LOL, Well if she isn’t experienced to be VP, what does that say about the even lesser experienced Obama. At least palin has run a state, all Obama has run is an election campaign.
BTW Are you outraged by the vile slander targeted at Palin, especially now that Palin’s daughter is pregnant, proving beyond doubt that her little brother is not her child?
2 September, 2008 at 8:34 am
“There is the whole Sarah Palin thing to post about now.”
and haven’t the rightards been making up for lost column space on that one! salivating over her like she’s the great saviour for the republicans. fact is she is a featherweight with no national or international experience whose first trip outside the US occurred only last year. the republican’s media arm fox news and mccain’s wife cindy had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to spin her foreign policy ‘credentials’ when they both said alaska is near siberia therefore she does have foreign policy knowledge. yes, i’m serious.
her views on social issues appeal to a select group of right-wing republicans rather than a broad base of voting women, and her inexperience only underscores the complete absence of policy substance put forward by mccain on national (and international) issues of an iraq timetable for withdrawal, the economy and bush tax cuts in particular, afghanistan as the front line in the war on terror, and sources of fuel.
a very, very brave choice by mccain. but our blinkered rightard friends are too occupied with palin to actually see her nomination does nothing to answer these important questions that so far have proven to be front and centre in this election.
2 September, 2008 at 8:47 am
and haven’t the rightards been making up for lost column space on that one!
LOL You have got to be joking. The left bloggers have been going rabid over the vile slander that Palin’s 5th child was not hers.
fact is she is a featherweight with no national or international experience whose first trip outside the US occurred only last year.
LOL This is just hysterical. Palin has run a state. What has Obama run? If Palin doesn’t have the experience to be VP then Obama has even less experience to be President.
but our blinkered rightard friends are too occupied with palin to actually see her nomination does nothing to answer these important questions that so far have proven to be front and centre in this election.
What they do do is shine a very bright light on Obama’s lack of experience. But by all means, the debate should be focused on experience because it is a debate that Obama does not want to have. Especially given that Palin has MORE experience than he does.
2 September, 2008 at 9:09 am
Yes and they will continue to have a go at KOS about the baby rumour when it was confirmed the 17 year old daughter of Palin is actually pregnant to her boyfriend…
Maybe she should have talked to her about the facts of life rather than shooting bears from a helicopter.
2 September, 2008 at 9:12 am
Yes and they will continue to have a go at KOS about the baby rumour when it was confirmed the 17 year old daughter of Palin is actually pregnant to her boyfriend…
In the process significantly damaging KOS and Michael Moore’s reputations. I wonder if they will do the right thing and offer palin an apology for their vile behaviour?
2 September, 2008 at 9:12 am
Bolt and friends show what lightweight thinkers they are with this Sarah Palin vs. Obama experience debate. When Sarah Palin was coming runner up in beauty contests in a town of 2000 people, Barack Obama was working his way into Harvard law. Obama is a high achiever, Palin a mooseburger muncher.
The GOP is clearly ‘running on empty’ in the talent stakes if John ‘robot’ McCain and Sarah ‘barracuda’ Palin are the best they have on offer, hopeless, much like the Liberal Party of Australia. Bush and Howards legacy it seems was to run their respective parties into the ground.
2 September, 2008 at 9:16 am
Obama is a high achiever, Palin a mooseburger muncher
Palin has Executive experience running a state. Obama has NO executive experience. When it comes to running a country, it is all about executive experience.
You can spin it all you want, but the fact remains, Palin has more experience than Obama. Which is bad for Obama because he is running for President, Palin is only running for VP.
2 September, 2008 at 9:25 am
“Palin has Executive experience running a state. Obama has NO executive experience. When it comes to running a country, it is all about executive experience. ”
If you want to get technical McCain has no exectutive experience either, nor does Biden. So should Palin be on top of the GOP ticket ahead of McCain? I dont think any rightards would suggest that.
2 September, 2008 at 9:25 am
ron, personally i think to much is made of the ‘experience’ thing, i simply highlight palin’s innappropriateness for the VP position when surely there were other far more qualified individuals mccain could of picked. palin’s nomination is politics designed to shore up the republican rightwingers who could of sat out the election rather than vote for mccain.
but if you wanted to compare experience, consider this. the democratic ticket comprises 40 years of national experience (obama’s 4 yrs as a senator + biden’s 36) and republican’s only 26 years national experience (mccain’s 4 yrs in the house and 22 yrs as senator). if mccain won the election and subsequently fell under a bus the most powerful nation in the world would be run by a rank amateur whose supporters have to point to her state’s proximity to russia to demonstrate any claims to experience in international relations.
2 September, 2008 at 9:32 am
if mccain won the election and subsequently fell under a bus the most powerful nation in the world would be run by a rank amateur whose supporters have to point to her state’s proximity to russia to demonstrate any claims to experience in international relations.
But with Obama there is NO need for anyone to fall under a bus as he would be the president. So your argument is flawed when comparing them to Obama. He only has 4 years experience in the senate and he will be president if he wins.
The only thing that Palin’s experience does is weaken the attack from McCain on Obama’s experience. It doesn’t allow for Obama to use it as an attack on Palin. The problem for Obama is that any attack on Palin regarding experience will inevitably lead to comparison’s with Obama’s experience. And given that he is running for President and Palin isn’t, Obama has the most to lose in the experience debate as Obama’s real contender is McCain, who clearly does have more experience than Obama
2 September, 2008 at 10:18 am
McCain will have difficulty showing ‘vitality’. He is 72 now and there would be a concern regarding his age. Palin was the choice to bring a bit of bling to the campaign to try and offset Obama.
For those who watched the last series of the West Wing there are a few similar themes.. Older republican vs younger minority democrat.
2 September, 2008 at 10:33 am
Greenland ice is melting faster than first thought! Check out yesterdays Age.
2 September, 2008 at 11:03 am
Bolta just can’t get enough of the word ‘vile’.
2 September, 2008 at 11:23 am
Or his graphs.. Another showing an increase in ice covereage in the Antartic. No link to the Artic though suprisingly (not). My post in case it doesnt make it:
Andrew,
Nice link to the graph. You should also show the northern hemisphere [url=http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/n_plot.html]graph.[/url]
It shows a decline that outstrips any growth in the southern hemisphere.
2 September, 2008 at 11:45 am
yes he is certainly salivating all over palin and her ‘leftist’ critics. keep going andy, you did the same thing with dubya. and look where bush is now.
2 September, 2008 at 11:49 am
He is onto graphs again telling only part of the story.. Here is my comment if it does not make it to his site:
Andrew,
Nice link to the graph. You should also show the northern hemisphere http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/n_plot.html
It shows a decline that outstrips any growth in the southern hemisphere.
2 September, 2008 at 11:56 am
It could be worst,
Now Global cooling is caused by global warming?! WTF?
Forget global warming – the latest problem is global cooling
Conservation group WWF has blamed climate change for the coldest August in Sydney for more than 60 years.
http://news.smh.com.au/national/big-chill-a-symptom-of-climate-chaos-20080901-46yx.html
Guys, you need to get your stories straight.
2 September, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Next they will be saying that; average month of rainfall and tempretures has been blamed on Climate change
2 September, 2008 at 12:04 pm
(Thanks to readers David, Brad and Kerry.)
What is it with these suck-holes on his blog?
Clambering over each other for, what?
Bolta saying “Thanks”.
Woopdeef**kingdoo…
2 September, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Bolta saying “Thanks”.
Woopdeef**kingdoo…
Are you bitter that he didn’t pick you?
2 September, 2008 at 12:08 pm
“Palin has Executive experience running a state.”
So – GW Bush was the governor of Texas – great president he turned out to be!!
Palin is a walking contradiction – Pro Life, Pro Death penalty WTF!!!!????
2 September, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Palin and Putin hunting together.
There’s a gloomy thought.
Hopefully they’d take Cheney with them…
2 September, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Palin is a walking contradiction – Pro Life, Pro Death penalty WTF!!!!????
The same could be said of those that are Pro-Choice but against the death penalty.
So – GW Bush was the governor of Texas – great president he turned out to be!!
Even Bush had more experience that Obama at the same stage in the Presidential election. That’s a really scary thought.
2 September, 2008 at 12:21 pm
“Even Bush had more experience that Obama at the same stage in the Presidential election. That’s a really scary thought.”
Thanks for making my point – Bush experienced but a bit thick and an utter disaster as a president. Thus why the weight on ‘experience’?
“The same could be said of those that are Pro-Choice but against the death penalty.”
If you equate an unborn foetus to a fully grown human being who is a legal entity. I don’t, do you?
2 September, 2008 at 12:24 pm
“Palin and Putin hunting together.
There’s a gloomy thought.
Hopefully they’d take Cheney with them…”
LOL – nice one Idlaviv.. That would be great – Cheney, about to retire taking out two pricks in a hunting “accident”.
2 September, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Thanks for making my point – Bush experienced but a bit thick and an utter disaster as a president. Thus why the weight on ‘experience’?
What does this say about Obama then?
2 September, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Thus why the weight on ‘experience’?
You need to direct that question towards those that are bringing into question Palin’s experience.
2 September, 2008 at 12:34 pm
That he’s clearly more intelligent than GW Bush – It says that being the governor of a state has no bearing whatsover on the ability to be a good president… So who gives a toss if the walking contradiction known as Palin was a mayor or whatever? This is no guarantee that she would be a good VP, GW Bush has proved this by being a total clusterfuck of a president regardless of his ‘experience’
BTW – you missed a bit of my post:
““The same could be said of those that are Pro-Choice but against the death penalty.”
If you equate an unborn foetus to a fully grown human being who is a legal entity. I don’t, do you?”
???? Well do you?
2 September, 2008 at 12:35 pm
“You need to direct that question towards those that are bringing into question Palin’s experience.”
No, I don’t, I’m making a point that I don’t give a toss about her experience either way, she’s a joke as far as I’m concerned as is anyone who claims to be Pro-Life and Pro death penalty.. Are you one of these people?
2 September, 2008 at 12:43 pm
DBoP,
Isn’t amazing how Bolt can spot a trend when he wants to?!
2 September, 2008 at 12:43 pm
ahh yes. the pro-life, pro-death peanlty conundrum. i’ve never been able to work out how such people reconcile such opposing view points and keep a straight face.
2 September, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Confessions, they just ignore the contradiction and for some reason hope that everybody else doesn’t notice.
Rad is normally quick to respond, he’s been quick today on the ‘experience’ question but it seems he is completely ignoring my question regarding Palin’s ridiculous contradiction? And ignoring my direct questions to him on where he stands on the issue.
2 September, 2008 at 1:00 pm
If you equate an unborn foetus to a fully grown human being who is a legal entity. I don’t, do you?”
???? Well do you?
I am pro-choice and against the death penalty, but my point was that I don’t believe that there is a contradiction between being pro-life and for the death penalty. Very much in the same way that there is no problem with being pro-choice and against the death penalty.
I see your point though about a foetus not being equivalent to a grown human and that is the criteria on which you have based your values.
Even though I don’t agree, I understand why a person can be pro-life and for the death penalty. Their argument tends to be around the argument that a foetus does not have a voice, where as a person that has committed a crime worthy of the death penalty is responsible for their actions.
Pro-Life and Pro death penalty.. Are you one of these people?
No, I’m not. I believe that a person that commits a horrific crime should be forced to spend what ever time they have left rotting in prison suffering for what they did. The death penalty is a free ticket out of this world.
2 September, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Could I make the point DB that if global warming (as opposed to climate change) is indeed global, them why isn’t it “global”?
I.e. surely there being an decrease in the ice in the northern hem would correspond with a decrease in the southern, due to the global nature of the warming.
I’m not saying, and neither I believe is Bolt (and you might show me as incorrect here with a quote), that GW isn’t AGW, but based on our knowledge of climate except the last 150 years when we have added to the CO2 load in the atmosphere, we’re not really able for any degree of certainty to say that a similar phenomenon has never occured before. Its a little rich to expect people to believe, though I conceed that many do, that a phenomenon which has no doubt happened many times without the assistance of man, (because we didn’t exist or lacked the ability to cause it) could now only be caused by us.
If we could be sure it was unprecedented, then i have no doubt we would all agree that we’re to blame, but we can’t.
Of course there it the further discussion as to whether its a bad thing in any case for the globe to warm a little.
Of course the alarmists dogmatically state that it is definately happening, it is definately caused by humans and it is definately bad. They further insist we can stop it if we repent.
I think the truth is in there some place, but I am doubtful on a number of fronts.
Nobody can say for sure it is happening.
Nobody can say for sure (even the IPCC) that we’re causing it.
Nobody can say for sure that its only a bad thing.
Nobody can say how to stop it or that anything we try to stop it will stop it.
Where there is doubt I’m happy to keep searching for “sure”, and from my reading of Bolt, (and though I agree with him a lot I have to say it is a lot lot less than you chaps who detest him) he agrees with me on that.
2 September, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Is there a true contradiction in wishing to save the innocent from death because their parents, in particular their mother, can’t abide their continued existance and arguing that the guilty no longer deserve the right to live?
Surely there is a crystal clear distinction between the life of an innocent foetus and a mass murdering adult?
2 September, 2008 at 1:47 pm
“The same could be said of those that are Pro-Choice but against the death penalty.”
then:
“I am pro-choice and against the death penalty”
LOL.
Really so you think that even though you have the same stance as me (I’m not a fan of abortion, but I’m still pro choice) you think that your own views are contradictory?
“I understand why a person can be pro-life and for the death penalty. ”
So do I, it’s because they’re stupid – so many pro-lifers are also pro war, they take the cake, they’re pricks like Palin and Bush.
2 September, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Really so you think that even though you have the same stance as me (I’m not a fan of abortion, but I’m still pro choice) you think that your own views are contradictory?
You have missed my point Rob. That is not what I am saying. I am trying to point out that being pro-choice and for the death penalty is no more contradictory than being pro-choice and against the death penalty.
It all comes down to where your personal belief system determines when a human life begins. This is where someone like Palin can bring together their beliefs. For them human life starts at conception so aborting a foetus is equivalent to killing a new born. The death penalty on the other hand is an act against an adult that is responsible for their actions.
Personally, I am for early term abortion but against late term abortion. If a premature baby can be born at 25 weeks and survive then an abortion at that stage of a pregnancy isn’t a good thing.
2 September, 2008 at 2:11 pm
actually crikey today ping the palin hypocrisy:
“Pro life … but not for animals. Pro life … but not for convicted criminals of a certain stamp. Pro family values … but with a pregnant teenage daughter who appears to model her own on Jamie Lynn Spears. Sarah Palin (no relation … we think) looks like being the US campaign gift that keeps giving. There are a number of reasons why Gov. Palin’s suitability for the office of vice-president will be an issue for American voters between now and November. Amongst the most serious is why she named her children Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig. Will she implode, or will she secure the arch-conservative base and seduce some addled fragment of the Clinton disaffected? Will her Elaineness turn out to be a chief selling point among an American constituency indiosyncratically drawn to outspoken, upright, ordinariness?
People laughed at Dan Quayle … ”
i think the kids name dig is a bit low – i read somewhere her husband is native american, but i love the comparison with seinfeld’s elaine!
2 September, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Keep going, folks (ie Rad). At this rate you’ll help this blog hit 500 comments easily!
2 September, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Pro life … but not for animals
Now that’s just a ridiculous statement by crikey. Palin’s views are no different to a person that eats meat and is against cannibalism. Most of us are against cannibalism but more than happy to get stuck into a piece of steak. Does that make them hypocritical?
2 September, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Rad – you better take that up with the good people at Crikey. They said it.
2 September, 2008 at 3:05 pm
“You have missed my point Rob. ”
Nah – I’ve got you pegged – I point out a blatant contradition you say that my stance (and yours) could be a contradiction – I explained that this would only be the case if one’s perspective were warped.
“am trying to point out that being pro-choice and for the death penalty is no more contradictory than being pro-choice and against the death penalty.”
Yes it is, I’ve explained why previously.
“It all comes down to where your personal belief system determines when a human life begins. ”
No it doesn’t, life begins at conception but I don’t consider that life at conception is ANYWHERE NEAR as valuable as the life of an adult (or child)
“For them human life starts at conception so aborting a foetus is equivalent to killing a new born.”
Because they have a warped sense of realism… I’m not arguing the point where life starts, I concur with the crazies on this. A blade of grass is alive but it’s life isn’t worth much.
“For them human life starts at conception so aborting a foetus is equivalent to killing a new born.”
Again, I’m in agreement, if only you weren’t sticking up for the hypocritical pricks who value the life of a foetus OVER the life of a criminal (or an Iraqi civilian for that matter (or an Afghani or Palestinian etc etc) then we’d be on the same page. As it stands to me it appears you’ll go to great lengths to defend pricks.
2 September, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Bron – Yep this comment role has more in it than the last 27 posts by Tim. That’s right there are more comments in here than Tim has mustered in 27 commentary pieces.
2 September, 2008 at 3:14 pm
I agree with Rad on this one.
Animals are not humans, criminals are not unborn children. There is a clear distinction there IMO. Crikey are off the boil on that.
2 September, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I was just thinking. It happens when I drink alcohol at lunchtime. Slows up the work..
2 September, 2008 at 3:21 pm
in fairness to crikey i’m pretty sure their referring to the senseless hunting. that bear hide and head slung over the couch in her office is case in point. it’s like those trophy hunters from the 19th century who would go on african safaris just for the thrill of being able to kill elephants and the like. whether your a meat eater or not is irrelevant.
2 September, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Most of us are against cannibalism but more than happy to get stuck into a piece of steak. Does that make them hypocritical?
I feel we could be making real prgoress here…
2 September, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Next thing there will be a claim about wanting soylent green put on the agenda.
2 September, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Timmeh put this bit up by Chris Ayres, LA-based Brit correspondent for the London Times:
At the age of 10, Sarah Palin got her very own bunny rabbit. Which means to say that she crouched down in the grass outside her family home, aimed her shotgun and blew its furry little head off.
That’s how things work in Alaska. You kill stuff.
Delinquency and Animal Cruelty: Realities about Social Pathology.
The Werribee lambs are still screaming Timmeh…
2 September, 2008 at 3:45 pm
conservative blog the daily dish had this to say about palin’s views on iraq:
“Wasn’t the whole point of the surge to kill off any notions in Iraq that we were going to withdraw and to ramp up counter-insurgency and troop levels indefinitely until the place was secure, and democratic? The whole point was that there was no exit plan for 2007 or beyond, and McCain opposed such an exit plan. The point, according to McCain, was “victory.” So McCain has picked a woman who, in so far as she had any views at all, actually echoed Democratic party talking points, not McCain’s.”
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/palin-surge-wha.html?source=cmailer
oh dear.
2 September, 2008 at 3:56 pm
more interesting insights from andrew sullivan, who refers to palin as having been presented to the nation as a “trophy candidate”:
“Maybe Ross (Douthat) is right and this chirpy young governor who has never even uttered an opinion about foreign policy and was too busy to even notice the surge except when hearing about it “on the news” is indeed a quick study and will prove us all wrong…..But I see no reason not to say on the day she’s picked that the selection seems pretty close to unserious to me. And in the context of a war that McCain keeps (rightly) saying is the fight for civilization, the selection suggests a) that McCain doesn’t believe a word he has been saying about the war or b) his cynicism and opportunism about national security makes Karl Rove look like Dwight Eisenhower.”
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/feminism-and-pa.html
2 September, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Nexus 6 has just done a great job on Bolt’s post about Antarctic ice extent today.
2 September, 2008 at 9:50 pm
At Bolt’s Arkham Asylum:
Gordon from Perth replied to Matthew
Tue 02 Sep 08 (05:25pm)
KKK’s 1st targets were Republicans (Neocon link #1)
The Ku Klux Klan was the Terrorist Arm of the Democrat Party (Neocon link #2)
If you ever want more, let me know in the Forum. I’m not sure I’ll be around all that much for the next little while, but I usually try to read there if nowhere else. Cheers.
Gordon does stretch it out somewhat…
2 September, 2008 at 10:30 pm
In ter esting.
2 September, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Rob J
Interested in the summations of the values of one life v another.
….life begins at conception but I don’t consider that life at conception is ANYWHERE NEAR as valuable as the life of an adult (or child) .
Would one be so bold as to accept the same logic were I to say;
…..life begins at conception but I don’t consider that life at Capetown is ANYWHERE NEAR as valuable as the life of an Englishman (or Scott) ?
2 September, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Rob J
Interested in the summations of the values of one life v another.
….life begins at conception but I don’t consider that life at conception is ANYWHERE NEAR as valuable as the life of an adult (or child) .
Would one be so bold as to accept the same logic were I to say;
…..life begins at conception but I don’t consider that life at Capetown is ANYWHERE NEAR as valuable as the life of an Englishman (or Scott) ?
One needs to take great care when one begins, (and I accept you are only beginning) to decide on who lives and who dies based on some arbitraty value system.
2 September, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Mighty Matt.
Rad Pipper.
Iry Tatered.
???
3 September, 2008 at 6:23 am
“Would one be so bold as to accept the same logic were I to say;
…..life begins at conception but I don’t consider that life at Capetown is ANYWHERE NEAR as valuable as the life of an Englishman (or Scott) ?”
LOL – You need to read my posts – I cover the subject of pro life right wing idiots considering the life of a foetus over the life of a fully grown Afghani or Iraqi!
Learn to read before you post.
3 September, 2008 at 9:04 am
Tobias – Nice link. A bit of frothing in the Bolt camp when I linked the northern hemisphere graph.
Palin Oops – http://www.theage.com.au/us-election-2008/condoms-youve-stumped-me-mccain-20080903-486r.html
I am picturing the campaign chiefs in the McCain camp going “Oh F**k”.
3 September, 2008 at 9:05 am
more interesting insights from andrew sullivan, who refers to palin as having been presented to the nation as a “trophy candidate
What is it about the left and Palin? They have gone irrationally rabid over her. First there was the totally irrational smear that her son Trig was her daughter’s child, an now all this other crap as highlighted below;
Pro life … but not for animals. Pro life … but not for convicted criminals of a certain stamp. Pro family values … but with a pregnant teenage daughter who appears to model her own on Jamie Lynn Spears. Sarah Palin (no relation … we think) looks like being the US campaign gift that keeps giving. There are a number of reasons why Gov. Palin’s suitability for the office of vice-president will be an issue for American voters between now and November. Amongst the most serious is why she named her children Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig. Will she implode, or will she secure the arch-conservative base and seduce some addled fragment of the Clinton disaffected? Will her Elaineness[sic] turn out to be a chief selling point among an American constituency indiosyncratically[sic] drawn to outspoken, upright, ordinariness?
She really does have the left running scared.
I do have to give credit to Bolt’s column today Palin spooks the castrated critics. Bolt hits the nail on the head with this column;
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_palin_spooks_the_castrated_critics
3 September, 2008 at 9:19 am
I am picturing the campaign chiefs in the McCain camp going “Oh F**k”.
Yeah right?! I think that you will find that they would have already factored all of this in before choosing her to be VP.
3 September, 2008 at 9:25 am
“Pro life … but not for convicted criminals of a certain stamp.”
“They have gone irrationally rabid over her.”
I’m not irrational – she’s a walking contradiction, that you fail to see this highlights your own shortcomings.
I couldn’t give a toss that her teenage daughter is pregnant, it gives me a giggle though, maybe if Mom wasn’t so irrationally opposed to sex education, contraception and realised that abstinence from sex is unnatural then maybe her daughter wouldn’t be in such a predicament. It just highlights how WRONG and OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY Palin is when it comes to the subject of sex education/contraception.
3 September, 2008 at 9:39 am
RadP – You honestly think that the contradiction she has put up there into the campaign is going to help them?
My opinion is that the daughter will become less and less visible during the campaign.
3 September, 2008 at 9:39 am
I’m not irrational – she’s a walking contradiction, that you fail to see this highlights your own shortcomings
No, it highlights your short comings. When you apply YOUR value system to it, it is a contradiction. What you fail to accept is that when it comes to debates over abortion and the death penalty, we all have different value systems that we apply, that helps us determine our point of view.
You fail to understand is that one of the arguments of pro-life is that an unborn child does not have a voice to defend it’s death. A person facing the death penalty can at least hire a lawyer and plead their case in a court of law. They are afforded the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This is something that an unborn child is not.
As I have stated previously, even though I am pro-choice and against the death penalty, I understand how someone else can be against abortion and for the death penalty.
It really comes down to when your belief system determine human life begins and when, the rights that are afforded to all humans, applies to an unborn child. For me I see that as being the final trimester of pregnancy. For pro-lifers, they see that as conception.
3 September, 2008 at 9:43 am
RadP – You honestly think that the contradiction she has put up there into the campaign is going to help them
What you fail to understand is the evangelical’s love of a situation where someone has sinned, sought redemption and been forgiven.
This is a classic tale of an All American family where the daughter has sinned, seek redemption from her parent’s and church and has been forgiven and guided into doing the right thing according to Christian values. That would be, have the child and marry the father.
You really do underestimate Palin and the American people. You will find that this will win her more votes from middle american because of this.
3 September, 2008 at 10:03 am
“No, it highlights your short comings. When you apply YOUR value system to it,”
MY value system is rational, MY value system rates the life of an adult higher than the life of a foetus. Earlier in the piece you pretty much claimed you held identical VALUES.
My values do not CONTRADICT themselves, Palin’s do.
“You fail to understand is that one of the arguments of pro-life is that an unborn child does not have a voice to defend it’s death.”
Assume much, I don’t fail to recognise obvious facts, I maintain that an adult life is worth more than the life of the foetus – thus a Pro-Life, Pro-Death Penalty (and no doubt pro war on Middle Easteners) is a hypocritical contradiction held buy stupid, rabid right wingers, a hypocritical contradiction that you are attempting to defend by making assumptions about what i think and attempting to put words in my mouth.
“As I have stated previously, even though I am pro-choice and against the death penalty, I understand how someone else can be against abortion and for the death penalty.”
As I have said before, I understand too, Doesn’t make them right though, they are hypocrites to claim that life is so valuable but still support the death penalty.
3 September, 2008 at 10:06 am
RadP “Yeah right?! I think that you will find that they would have already factored all of this in before choosing her to be VP”
Sorry Rad – She was not the first choice.. In fact she was not McCain’s second choice. Oh she wasn’t the third or the fourth choice. She was the fifth choice
“he turned to Mrs Palin, meeting her on Thursday for an interview and offering her the job moments later. Advisers to two of the finalists on McCain’s list described an intensive vetting process for those candidates that lasted one to two months.”
http://www.theage.com.au/us-election-2008/hasty-selection-forced-on-mccain-20080902-4815.html?page=-1
3 September, 2008 at 10:13 am
“That would be, have the child and marry the father.”
And they’d probably make her marry him even if he was an abusive prick – better to let your daughter live in an abusive relationship than have an abortion or use a condom or live in so-called ’sin’ and offend a so-called god.
What a bunch of crazies, what a warped perspective! Had she been educated properly she may have not found herself in such a predicament, she probably would have used contraception. But no, she was raised by a zealot who holds archaic values based on what I consider myths, values that hold the life of a foetus over a fully grown human being. Warped values that you are happy to defend.
Would you defend the Taleban because they have a different value system to you? You seem so damned keen to defend Palin’s stuffed up value system.
3 September, 2008 at 10:14 am
MY value system is rational, MY value system rates the life of an adult higher than the life of a foetus.
There are a lot of people that would be horrified that you rate the life of an adult much higher that the life of an unborn child.
I personally believe that the life of an unborn child in the final trimester of pregnancy is equal to that of an adult and as such should be protected.
Earlier in the piece you pretty much claimed you held identical VALUES
I do, but I accept and understand those that believe that human life begins at contraception. Even though I don’t agree. I also understand their argument that an adult can fend for themselves in ways that a foetus cannot.
As I have said before, I understand too, Doesn’t make them right though, they are hypocrites to claim that life is so valuable but still support the death penalty.
I agree, it doesn’t make them right. Where I don’t agree with you is that it does not make them hypocrites when you understand their belief system in regards to abortion and the death penalty.
3 September, 2008 at 10:20 am
“Sorry Rad – She was not the first choice.. In fact she was not McCain’s second choice. Oh she wasn’t the third or the fourth choice. She was the fifth choice”
Rad will never admit it, the reason Palin got the gig was to placate the fundy right – the American Taleban. Crazies that Rad is all too keen to defend, people who’s warped attitudes should have been abandoned in the dark ages where they likely came from.
Any rational person can instantly realise that Palin is not McCain’s choice, not by a very very long shot.
3 September, 2008 at 10:38 am
RobJ – The boyfriend is a self proclaimed red neck who does not want kids.
3 September, 2008 at 10:45 am
Rad will never admit it, the reason Palin got the gig was to placate the fundy right – the American Taleban. Crazies that Rad is all too keen to defend, people who’s warped attitudes should have been abandoned in the dark ages where they likely came from.
Rob, I actually agree with you to a point. In the 2000 republican campaign it was McCain against Bush for the republican ticket. The religious right backed Bush and in the process started a vicious smear campaign against McCain in South Carolina.
Ever since, McCain has had a bad relationship with the religious right in the republican party.
What choosing palin does is appease the religious right while potentially picking up disillusioned Hillary supporters from the democrats.
Any rational person can instantly realise that Palin is not McCain’s choice, not by a very very long shot
I don’t agree with you on this point. I think if Hilary had won the democratic ticket, then you would be right. Palin would have been a bad choice as VP if Hillary was running for President or if Obama had chosen Hillary as VP.
But I think that McCain chose Palin because of a number of strategic opportunities that opened up after Obama won the Democratic ticket and Hillary was no longer in the picture.
3 September, 2008 at 10:54 am
RobJ – The boyfriend is a self proclaimed red neck who does not want kids
LOL That’s funny. What teenage boy doesn’t want kids? But the main thing here is that he is facing up to his responsibility as a father. It would have been worse if he had run and refused to take responsibility for the child.
3 September, 2008 at 11:01 am
funny, nobody but radp brings up the pregnant daughter and then tries to ping it on the left being obsessed with palin. hypocrite. i knew your behaviour from yesterday wouldn’t last.
andy and timmy have done a massive transference with palin. where once they derided those who poked fun at bush and poured scorn on those who laughed at the bushisms now their doing the same thing with palin. just feel the lurve bro. fact rad: it ain;’t the left who are obsessed with palin, it’s all those crackpots on the right who can’t see that she’s the most innappropriate choice for VP and slather all over her contradictory stances on issues.
that’s why the right have been the ones to try to talk up her foreign policy nous by linking it to geogrpahic location of alaska.
3 September, 2008 at 11:04 am
“There are a lot of people that would be horrified that you rate the life of an adult much higher that the life of an unborn child.”
So – There are a lot of people who would be horrified that i support equal rights for women, why should I care what horrifies religious zealots, be they Afghani Taleban or American Fundamentalists?
“RobJ – The boyfriend is a self proclaimed red neck who does not want kids.”
Poor girl. Fucked parents!
“Where I don’t agree with you is that it does not make them hypocrites when you understand their belief system in regards to abortion and the death penalty.”
Rad – to claim that one values human life and then support the death penalty is hypocrisy – just because it’s borne of their medieval religious views doesn’t absolve them of hypocrisy. Your rationale excuses the monstrous acts of the likes of the Taleban, after all they’re only doing what they think is the right thing to do as per their belief system.
We are going around in circles – we’ll have to agree to disagree, besides this page is taking ages to load and I better do some real work.
“What choosing palin does is appease the religious right while potentially picking up disillusioned Hillary supporters from the democrats.”
Yeah – I agree, it’s a worry that so many adults can be swayed to jump the fence and cut off their noses to spite their face. This election is up for grabs, I for one will not be surprised to McCain win, after all they did give GW a second term, and he’s an utter disaster, a man who clearly does not possess the high levels of intelligence that ought to be mandatory for the highest office in the land (FTR – I don’t think McCain is stupid, he’s a war monger alright but he aint as thick as Bush)
3 September, 2008 at 11:05 am
it’s all those crackpots on the right who can’t see that she’s the most innappropriate choice for VP and slather all over her contradictory stances on issues.
and Obama’s experience is what exactly?
3 September, 2008 at 11:06 am
read my posts from yesterday rad. i don’t do rehash like you.
3 September, 2008 at 11:09 am
robj
it was the religious right that got bush over the line in 2004. the reps are hoping palin will do the same for team mccain this year. they needed to mobilise the rightwing of the party to have a chance at victory, and judging from the amount of money that’s flocked into his campaign since palin choice, it’s working.
3 September, 2008 at 11:09 am
read my posts from yesterday rad. i don’t do rehash like you
My point being that Obama has less experience than Palin and he is running for a higher position than her.
She has run a state, he has only run an election campaign.
3 September, 2008 at 11:18 am
it was the religious right that got bush over the line in 2004. the reps are hoping palin will do the same for team mccain this year. they needed to mobilise the rightwing of the party to have a chance at victory, and judging from the amount of money that’s flocked into his campaign since palin choice, it’s working.
There is also the fact that McCain and the religious right do not get along. It is rumured that their smear campaign of him during the 2000 republican primaries forced McCain to contemplate leaving the republican party and running as an independent.
Later, when Republican Senator Jim Jeffords became an Independent, throwing control of the Senate to the Democrats, McCain defended Jeffords against “self-appointed enforcers of party loyalty”.[136] Indeed, there was speculation at the time, and in years since, about McCain himself possibly leaving the Republican Party, but McCain has always
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#Senate_career_after_2000
3 September, 2008 at 11:35 am
The American taliban.
Spot on Rob.
‘Hopefully they’d take Cheney with them…’
LOL Idlaviv,
What is it with the Left and being so ‘vile’?
Rad.
Whilst you appear to fairly hold rational views on this topic, i feel you are defending a pretty sick world view when you say that you understand how you could be prolife and prodeath at the same time.
I bring to your attention the case of a schitzophrenic and mentally retarded man with the intellect of a young year old child sentenced to death in Virginia.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/039/2008/en/0b273069-1dd5-11dd-a442-edc80cf9d3ed/amr510392008eng.html
He is unable to defend himself, yet is granted (by the prolife/prodeath cult) less human rights than a blob of cells the size of a pea.
No wonder they call’ em rightwing deathbeasts.
Fucking dogs.
3 September, 2008 at 11:46 am
DBoP,
Good job on pointing out the Arctic ice data at Bolt’s blog. Yesterday evening I tried to post the same Nexus 6 link I posted here, but it has not appeared (and I haven’t received any contact about it). If the moderators over there are going to choose not to allow a comment to go through, the very least they could do is contact the person who wrote it by e-mail to indicate why.
I notice another comment was “snipped for abuse and misrepresentation” – I am wondering whether they are censoring the link because it’s titled “Andrew Bolt is a fraud.”
3 September, 2008 at 11:55 am
He is unable to defend himself, yet is granted (by the prolife/prodeath cult) less human rights than a blob of cells the size of a pea
I fully agree with you that it is morally wrong to sentence a person who suffers from mental illness to death for a crime that was committed during an event that was cause by that illness.
But this is a separate issue to the overall death penalty. There are a lot of people that support the death penalty that would be against the death penalty being used in certain circumstances, like a person who was insane or for a child.
Putting that aside, I always thought that insanity was a defence that could be used by the person being charged.
So the issue with the case you linked to wasn’t really about the death penalty, it was more about legal defence of insanity. Why wasn’t this used during the trial and if it was, why did the jury reject it as a defence?
3 September, 2008 at 11:59 am
Sarah Palin wants creationism to be taught side by side with evolution. She’s lost me already!
3 September, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Good post on Bolt and his graphs at larvatus.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/03/arctic-update/
Oh no Andy, wrong again.
3 September, 2008 at 1:23 pm
What’s the bet that in a year from now Bolt will be feverishly pointing out how the 2009 Arctic ice melt is less extensive than the 2008 melt, as if it meant something. We’ll then get years of – ‘Arctic ice has been increasing since 2008!’
3 September, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Rad,
The issue of mental illness applies not just to the insanity defence (i.e., whether the defendant should not be held criminally responsible because of mental illness when the offence was committed). There are at least two more issues where mental illness is an issue:
1. Competence to stand trial – a trial should not proceed if the defendant’s mental illness prevents him or her from participating in and making decisions about his or her defence.
2. Competence to be executed – the 8th Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. It has normally been held that to put someone to death when they are unable to comprehend why they are being executed (e.g., due to mental illness or retardation) would be cruel and unusual.
3 September, 2008 at 2:08 pm
TZ – Thanks for that.. Of course there was the usual bleatings from the herd. Andrew Bolt consistently cherry picks the data to suit his argument. Yet he fires off at anyone else who only covers part of the story or the facts.
3 September, 2008 at 3:59 pm
hey just read this “comment of the year” on bolt’s blog
john n replied to Little Ted
Wed 03 Sep 08 (02:13pm)
Maybe one day,one of the Aboriginals will stand up and apologise to the white race for not recognising the benefits white has brought to them.
The doctors, medicines, electricity , reading glasses plus all the comforts we all take for granted today.And those benefits we share with everyone who lives in this big country
This may sound naive but I ,for one, are sick of seeing our Western society used and abused by people who give nothing, take all.
What ever our history, our present day stndards took a great deal of blood,sweat and tears to attain and most of it came from white Australia. I salute our pioneers,they did a massive job.
i’d just like to share with the world what sort of fuckwits also reside here.
3 September, 2008 at 4:01 pm
“It would have been worse if he had run and refused to take responsibility for the child.”
Worse for McCain, at least. I’m sure the guy won’t “run” before the election, but he’s at unbackable odds to do it very soon after.
3 September, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Fred – Yep. I can imagine the spin doctors working him over time. “Look son, it would be in your best interest to say you will marry the girl.”
Of course if McCain doesn’t win?
3 September, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Levi Johnston.
America’s Corey Delaney.
3 September, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Bristol & Levi.
Here’s a stab at the name of their unborn…
Dulux Lee?
3 September, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Classic comment above notallright. Andrew Bolt should change his name to Andy Millman, because he is just like Ricky Gervais’ character in extras.
He tries to gain respect for his “work” amongst a wider audience, and amongst respectable media, and gain appreciation for being a philosopher of sorts. But upon failing in this regard, in the end just reverts too his bread and butter audience of low-brow idiots, slathering over his cheap catch phrases and dumbed-down rhetoric.
Just like Gervais’ Milmman character returning to the pub and churning out his “are you having a laugh” line for a bunch of drunks in the pub. Revel in the type of audience you have created Andy.
3 September, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Drawing a lengthy bow there Chris. Nice effort though.
You may also recall that the types of people who shun Millman at the swanky pub aren’t worthy of his acclaim. They are a pompous, shallow and posturing bunch. In the end, Millman is glad to be rid of their company. That said, the bunch of blokes at the pub he ends up at are fools. As are the majority of Bolt’s bloggers.
Im not sure this actually has much to say about Bolt but there you go. At least your post had a bit of originality about it. Maybe we should start an “Extras” blog.
3 September, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Ricky Gervais had a good pod cast there for a while but all good things must come to an end.
I do note that despite all the “vile” blubbering about attacking children in politics most of his posters have forgotten the Miley Cirus post: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/confused_miley_hears_earthy_voice
Andy is not above calling kids names or above attacking babies left in GREEN bags in his crusade.
3 September, 2008 at 9:36 pm
500+ comments
We need a new post.
3 September, 2008 at 9:59 pm
“Andy is not above calling kids names or above attacking babies left in GREEN bags in his crusade.”
nobody hates like teh right.
3 September, 2008 at 10:10 pm
seems timmy is keeping to his word about not attacking deveny. how he was able to resist mocking her latest self-deprecating column about turning 40 is anyone’s guess, such that there are rich pickings for the childishly-disposed like our rightard bloggers.
good on him but for having a go.
3 September, 2008 at 10:37 pm
notallright
3 September, 2008 at 3:59 pm
That comment you quoted has been circulating around the English speaking world in various guises for a few years now.
Not even original.
4 September, 2008 at 7:41 am
just me that’s true but one would hope that over time we are becoming less ignorant and more educated. that post shows that either we aren’t or that education is a waste of time for some people.
and chris of bris i think that that was a good analogy. of course none are perfect. and daics most of the journalists that andy wants approval from are pretty pompous.
4 September, 2008 at 9:26 am
meanwhile the hand-wringing continues at tim blair’s as he rails against more mockery of sarah palin. this is laughable shit from blair who shamelessly outed and exploited intimate and private details about jeremy’s personal life for the sake of comments on his blog. he sat back while his sheep speculated unmoderated over jeremy’s sex life, sexual orientation, and reproductive capacity among other disgraceful remarks about private matters. all this of course is conviently forgotten as the white knight from werribee mounts his stallion and charges to shield sarah palin (infinitely a more important and more public figure than jeremy) from the horrors of free speech.
rightards: hypocrites by any other name.
4 September, 2008 at 10:56 am
confessions.. – I am wondering if Tim is becoming more and more irrelevant. Sure he has had a gig on Q+A and Insiders but he didn’t perform as well as Bolt.
His blogs are getting less and less comments. I think the swap to the more moderated tele website has lost a lot of his online supporter base.
4 September, 2008 at 11:25 am
yes, his blog is becomming more irrelevant now in my opinion. in recent months he’s also backed right off the kind of shit-flinging he used to hand out to other bloggers (tele legal advice?) and i’m beginning to think his retreat from deveny has less to do with him reading about supposed bipolar and more to do with being pinged by a couple of his readers for not understanding her written style. i mean, how long can you continue to pretend you don’t know she’s a self-deprecating comedy writer before you start to look like a complete fool? the bipolar saga gave timmy a nice face-saving out to bring a stop to the whole charade.
BUT, given he’s a biased polemicist like andy and is now playing the same game with palin that they did with bush (angrily mocking and albeit trying to silence those who criticise her), i’m still going to keep calling his hypocrisy and outright bullshit whenever i see it.
4 September, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Bolta Liveblogging Palin’s speech.
What a monumental slave to the red state system…
4 September, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Bolta Liveblogging Palin’s speech
What an absolutely fantastic speech it was. Palin’s critics have underestimated her and she has proven them wrong. Here is a woman that truly represents the real feminism of the 21st century.
4 September, 2008 at 1:22 pm
it was a good speech for someone who needed to show the nation who she was. i was hoping to get a sense of policy detail, but maybe mccain will do that with his acceptance speech.
4 September, 2008 at 1:30 pm
“Bolta Liveblogging Palin’s speech.
What a monumental slave to the red state system…”
somebody has to fly the flag. and timmy is stragely missing in action.
4 September, 2008 at 1:43 pm
i was hoping to get a sense of policy detail, but maybe mccain will do that with his acceptance speech.
Policy detail is more the realm of McCain in his speech. He is the one running for president. Hilary has met her match.
I have always suspected that Hilary was waiting for Obama to lose so she could run in 2012. If McCain does win, it will be interesting to see what happens in 2012 if Hilary wins the democratic ticket.
Of course, if Obama wins then it is all over red rover for Hilary’s chances of ever being president.
4 September, 2008 at 1:47 pm
notallright
just me that’s true but one would hope that over time we are becoming less ignorant and more educated. that post shows that either we aren’t or that education is a waste of time for some people.
They say that the only two certainties in this world are death and taxes. They are wrong. There will also always be wilfully ignorant (and sometimes seriously violent) bigots. Sad but true.
Rad Pipper
Here is a woman [Palin] that truly represents the real feminism of the 21st century.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
4 September, 2008 at 1:50 pm
it will be interesting to see how her speech and her upcoming travelling roadshow is received by the populace. cnn said this morning in key swing states (iowa or idaho???, can’t find a link) obama leads mccain with the female vote by as much as 20 points but definitely in double digits, effectively giving those states to democrats. with those electoral votes assuming the states go to the dems it meant they had 243 to reps 189, with other swing states of florida and virginia still on hand to deliver the 27 electoral votes needed to win office.
8 or 9 weeks left to go and a shit load of ground for mccain to make up. obama and palin have done one thing though: suddenly the presidential race is interesting cause it’s not just about old white guys slugging it out.
4 September, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Obama and Biden are now laden with attacking this perfect American woman.
Hah ha
Obama Biden Laden
Husky_Jim of Ocean Grove (Reply)
Thu 04 Sep 08 (01:32pm)
Class act from the troll…
4 September, 2008 at 2:06 pm
obama and palin have done one thing though: suddenly the presidential race is interesting cause it’s not just about old white guys slugging it out
I agree, but I think Hilary needs to be added to that list. She really was the one that kicked it off with the speculation a few years ago that she was going to run in 2008.
Personally, I lost interest in the US elections when Obama beat Hilary. But Now that Palin has entered the race, it has made it one of the most interesting US elections in decades.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Along with Condoleezza Rice and Hilary Clinton, Palin represents the new face of feminism in the 21 century. Women that are equals among men, running for the real position of power in the world. These women are the true equals to men.
4 September, 2008 at 2:42 pm
RadP – “represents the new face of feminism in the 21 century.”
Yep – Grandmother at 45, moose gutting, bear shootin, beauty queen…
Ms Greer must be shaking.
4 September, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Daics, Not all right, I agree that Andy Millman from Extras and Andrew Bolt are not perfectly analogues, but there are many similarities. And sure some of the people that snub Millman in Extras are “pompous, shallow and posturing”, just like some of the people who criticise Bolt. But from what I remember Millman’s snubbing also extends to a degree to a wider audience of people viewing his material. Just as Bolt in his true self is too most people, who would reject the juvenile and meaningless endless ranting that he engages in about “the left”.
When he is laughed at by Scientists, real journalists and the general populace, who, unlike the mindless idiots on his blog, don’t accept his condescending and amateurish drivel, even when he moderates his behavior, acting more reasonable beyond the confines of his blog, he simply returns to his community settling on praise for his low-brow and dumbed-down sloganeering and name calling from a lesser audience. Just like Millman with his “are you having a laugh” line.
4 September, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Apparently, Andy’s a supporter of feminism, so long as it’s Andy’s version:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/living_the_feminist_dream_not_preaching_it/
Which is apparently not the version practiced by the feminists:
Which is a creed of individualism that horrifies the tribal feminist:
Which is why the largest American feminist group, the National Organisation for Women, wasted no time issuing a statement saying it did not endorse Palin because she was not the “right woman” and did not speak “for” women.
So apparently, Andy’s version of feminsim is that version which most leads women to act and become more like men? Conservative men…naturally.
4 September, 2008 at 5:39 pm
“Mrs Palin emerges as a tough-talking, self-made and determined “people’s politician”, who insists she was never a victim of sexism …”
any other woman on any other day of the week and she’d be labelled a lesbian by boltites.
4 September, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Isn’t it hilarious to see conservatives trying to take ownership of equality?
I guess it’s either that or having to admit that the despised ‘liberals’ and ‘feminists’ have dragged them kicking and screaming into the 20thC.
4 September, 2008 at 6:07 pm
chris i was saying that i agree with you. a perfect example. well no analogy is perfect but it’s a good one.
and many of the journalists are pompous, but so is bolt. he’s just laughed at by many people cause he’s got no reason to be pompous. you description of his writing is exactly as i see it.
4 September, 2008 at 6:25 pm
We’re fighting a losing battle against these trolls. I think I know why people find it so irresistible to reply to them, and that’s because they’re so astoundingly dumb. That makes them both easy targets and infuriating. So it’s both easy to demolish their “arguments” and very hard to resist doing so. But seriously people, it’s worth the effort.
4 September, 2008 at 7:17 pm
True notallright. The funniest thing about right-wing opinionists like Bolt and others, is how they try to portray themselves as of “the real world” or representing the “common man”. The fact being that people like Bolt are as pompous and elitist as they get, frequently bagging out those of lower socio-economic standing, rubbishing state education, and describing their overseas holidays and expensive indulgencies. The thing with Bolt is he doesn’t posses the intellectual abilities to match the pompous demeanour, simply being in the right place at the right time, filling the role of the right-wing blowhard columnists. A position that will always have a demand for it within our society.
4 September, 2008 at 7:27 pm
“Isn’t it hilarious to see conservatives trying to take ownership of equality”
Its hilarious to see these self-described conservatives contort logic to try to take ownership for every bit of social progress made within and, everything good about western societies. Its one of the favorite things the Boltards like to engage in. Leaving “the left” as truly responsible for everything bad.
Their cognitive dissonance and lack of self-awareness preventing them to see the clear irony that in the absense of a cultural war or stoush over preferred political parties, they would be the first to be against many of these convienient and inconsistent beliefs. Bolt’s logic is that real feminists never mention the disadvantages faced by women within society. It’s the same with his position on homosexuality. Being that homosexuals should be tolerated if they dont mention their sexuality and don’t mention homophobia.
4 September, 2008 at 9:39 pm
bolt today:
“Green lies”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/green_lies/
oh the delicious irony!
4 September, 2008 at 10:41 pm
“What an absolutely fantastic speech it was. Palin’s critics have underestimated her and she has proven them wrong. Here is a woman that truly represents the real feminism of the 21st century.”
Not a bad speech. But you do realise that Palin didn’t write, don’t you? What happened was that she read someone else’s words off a teleprompter. Your extreme hyperbole is, to put it kindly, inapt.
5 September, 2008 at 12:18 am
“Not a bad speech. But you do realise that Palin didn’t write, don’t you? What happened was that she read someone else’s words off a teleprompter. Your extreme hyperbole is, to put it kindly, inapt.”
True, Fred. But cannot the same be said for Obama’s soaring speeches? Or any modern political leader?
They are still enunciating the words. Had Palin said something foolish, would anyone defend her by saying she had just been reading from an autocue?
5 September, 2008 at 6:43 am
I am really really trying to find something ( anything ) good that Andy rambles on with. But this mornings column in the hun by Andy. Apparently Iraq has been won again for 25th time. ( with ONLY 11 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq last month )
And he manages to put the boot into Kevvie at the same time, he mentioned ” Rudd ” ( not Mr. Rudd, just plain old Rudd )every paragraph. How come no one hates like the right?
5 September, 2008 at 7:13 am
Andrew, I commend you. You are the only commentator brave enough to express what 80% of Australians think but are afraid to say.
Unlike what they are portrayed by the green media, aboriginals are not green, land protecting and benign. When they arrived on this continent they destroyed the existing fauna and flora and completely changed the landscape very quickly. They are opportunistic, pretty much like us white man and they continue to be opportunistic and take everything they can from us white suckers.
Simon of Tasmania (Reply)
Fri 05 Sep 08 (06:37am)
Another fine example of the racist bigotry that the Bolta purposely encourages.
And Geoff, you’re right. ONLY 11 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq last month really does take the cake…
5 September, 2008 at 7:32 am
Not a bad speech. But you do realise that Palin didn’t write, don’t you? What happened was that she read someone else’s words off a teleprompter. Your extreme hyperbole is, to put it kindly, inapt.
Oh Please Fred! Of course she didn’t write it. American politicians running for VP or president have not written their own speeches for decades. They employee a team of dozens of gifted speech writers to do it for them.
I can’t believe that you even had to suggest that someone wouldn’t know that.
5 September, 2008 at 9:03 am
Palin has extensive experience.. More than Obama
I mean she would have had to answer those tricky questions during the beauty peagents.
5 September, 2008 at 9:13 am
Palin has extensive experience.. More than Obama
I mean she would have had to answer those tricky questions during the beauty peagents
What a sexist, demeaning comment. Would you ever say the same thing about a man that had been governor of a state and was running for Vice president of the USA?
I find it funny how the left can fall into the stereotypical, chauvinist behaviour when they are dealing with a powerful, confident woman from the conservative side of politics.
5 September, 2008 at 9:21 am
Message to Rad Pipper – your sense of humour is looking for you.
Stop trying to take every comment as an excuse to pick a fight.
5 September, 2008 at 9:25 am
Message to Rad Pipper – your sense of humour is looking for you
I’m sorry. I didn’t realise that a sexist comment about a woman was thought of as a sense of humour.
I just hope you don’t unleash that same sense of humour on Obama.
5 September, 2008 at 9:34 am
“I find it funny how the left can fall into the stereotypical, chauvinist behaviour when they are dealing with a powerful, confident woman from the conservative side of politics.”
lol!! you mean like all those ‘barren’ comments about julia gillard that came from the coalition, and more recently mocking her ‘one bedroom apartment’ by peter costello? like andy sprayed vitriol at michelle obama, who isn’t even a candidate and then had the hide to use the term ‘vile’ when the same treatment is meted out to palin? you mean all those distasteful attacks on deveny by both andy and timmy? you mean like andy’s sheep carried on about hillary clinton, gleefully revelling in those nutcracker dolls?
yes rad it’s hilarious.
5 September, 2008 at 10:03 am
And give the faux outrage a miss, your sense of moral supiority and righteousness are a tad overdone.
5 September, 2008 at 10:07 am
But it is true that you would never say the same thing about a man with the same level of experience running for the same job.
5 September, 2008 at 10:08 am
“What a sexist, demeaning comment. ”
Hang on, you often defend Bolt who’s blog is littered with sexist and racist comments, why not take your mock outrage over there?
“I’m sorry. I didn’t realise that a sexist comment about a woman was thought of as a sense of humour.”
^^ Like I say – mock outrage.
5 September, 2008 at 10:13 am
Hang on, you often defend Bolt who’s blog is littered with sexist and racist comments, why not take your mock outrage over there?
And I said similar things to commenter’s over there, earlier this year when they would say similar comments about Hilary.
So just because there are commenter’s over at Bolt’s blog making sexist comments about Hilary, that doesn’t justify similar comments being made here about Palin.
5 September, 2008 at 10:14 am
Hey Rad – Loosen up! your faux outrage may create faux wrinkles!
The republicans have a looong record of using puppets in the political arena.. Ronald Reagan, Arnie come to mind. Palin is just the next one.
You are the one claiming she had more experience than Obama, I was just pointing out that some of her speech giving was a result of her beauty peagent experience.
5 September, 2008 at 10:19 am
If Obama or Hillary had entered contests I would have said the same. The ability to spin and smile at the same time is well demonstrated during the contests.
5 September, 2008 at 10:20 am
You are the one claiming she had more experience than Obama, I was just pointing out that some of her speech giving was a result of her beauty peagent experience
I think that you will find that here speech giving experience would have come from her time as a mayor and the Governor of Alaska.
A speech made at a beauty pageant is not in the same realm or league as a political speech.
The speech Palin gave yesterday was better than any of the speeches Bush, and his predecessor, Clinton ever gave.
5 September, 2008 at 10:22 am
“And I said similar things to commenter’s over there, earlier this year when they would say similar comments about Hilary.”
Link us then, how about the racist comments? Also what about Bolt’s personal sexist vitriol he regularly points at Christine Nixon and other female police officers. Can’t ever remember seeing you pull him up on that.
“that doesn’t justify similar comments being made here about Palin.”
It doesn’t, it shows your lack of sense of humour and your OBVIOUS mock outrage.
5 September, 2008 at 10:29 am
Link us then, how about the racist comments?
I am not going to spend the next few hours, scrolling through Bolt’s blog looking for comments I made 7 or 8 months ago. But if you want to do that, be my guest. I posted there under then name of Rad.
It has been a while since I have posted on Bolt’s blog. These days, I prefer just to read his blog, rather than post on it.
Also what about Bolt’s personal sexist vitriol he regularly points at Christine Nixon and other female police officers. Can’t ever remember seeing you pull him up on that
I actually agree with you, that bolt does cross the line when he talks about female police officers. Female police officers should have the same opportunities as male police officers.
5 September, 2008 at 10:29 am
Interesting info on refugee situation in Iraq.
Does the average American really care about the Iraqis?
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/iraq?page=home
5 September, 2008 at 10:50 am
“I am not going to spend the next few hours, scrolling through Bolt’s blog looking for comments I made 7 or 8 months ago.”
It’s got a search engine now.
“It has been a while since I have posted on Bolt’s blog. These days, I prefer just to read his blog, rather than post on it.”
Heh – I don’t even visit anymore, it’s too depressing reading the views of extreme right wing sycophants, I’m just glad the idiot racists twats are in the minority. Also I don’t want to contribute to Bolt’s earnings by clicking on his website because he’s a nasty, vile, dog whistling coward who stifles debate with his wanton snip-ing.
Anyway – sorry Rad, I do believe you when you say that you’ve taken sexist comments to task over at Bolt’s, and if your consistent in this regard I apologise for claiming your outrage was false.
5 September, 2008 at 10:55 am
“But it is true that you would never say the same thing about a man with the same level of experience running for the same job.”
if you look back over my comments about palin, i have attacked the political opportunism of her nomination, her national/international experience relative to obama’s, as well as the absence of policy from the republicans compared to the democrats. i have never said she is unsuitable for the role because she is female, a mother or whatever. and no, i wouldn’t make the same statements about a man – biden is a single father and never once have i used this to argue against his suitability for VP. people’s relationships and their family situation have fuck all to do with their professional capacities in my view.
my point is that you have made a sweeping generalisation about the left when you only have to look at the right’s bullshit about gillard and how she doesn’t relate to ‘your average woman’ because she isn’t married and doesn’t have kids, the blatantly homophobic and sexist stuff boltards post about penny wong, and in a US context the shit meted out by the republicans about clinton being ’shrill’ or only a candidate because of her husband – entirely sexist when you consider she’s been a senator for years and has a professional record of experience all her own and independant from her husband. if you are being honest about posting at bolt’s you would of seen these very statements posted there.
5 September, 2008 at 12:04 pm
At 7.15 I posted (above) about Simon of Tasmania’s
post at Bolt’s blog (Fri 05 Sep 08 (06:37am))
which included:
They are opportunistic, pretty much like us white man and they continue to be opportunistic and take everything they can from us white suckers.
I posted a comment over there at 8.12am. Idlaviv replied to Simon
Fri 05 Sep 08 (08:12am)
Simon,
How your racist and bigoted response managed to get through the moderators is beyond me.
Unless of course this is exactly the sort of reply Andrew was looking for…
Since then Simon of Tasmania’s post has been changed to:
They are opportunistic, pretty much like us whites.
His monkeys don’t know this and, boy, are they going me. Would Bolt be enjoying their misguided attack on me?
You bet he is…
They are currently having a nice feed on my post
5 September, 2008 at 12:05 pm
confessions.. Palin is already using the “hockey mom” as a drawcard. So it is ok if you use it yourself but not if someone points out something else about your history or personal makeup?
5 September, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Idlaviv – I bet if you reply now asking why Simon’s post was modified without comment your post will not make it up.
But, you know Andrew is all for free speech and everything..
5 September, 2008 at 12:14 pm
DB,
I did send ‘em one.
I am certain it will never see the light of day.
Bet I’ll be banned too.
Maybe, Ed, Jeremy or Ant, we could start a new thread on Bolt’s so-called free speech?
5 September, 2008 at 12:15 pm
“. Would Bolt be enjoying their misguided attack on me?”
The guy is a prick Idlaviv – a dishonest shit stirrer of the worst kind, he incites racial hatred. I urge you to not post there, or even visit the site – let the right wing crazies have their circle jerk, let them live in their false paradise where they believe that they represent normality not the lunatic fringe.
By visiting Bolt’s site he gets a click – by posting common sense he gets heaps of activity, the knee jerk rednecks ready to dog pile anybody with a rational post. Ultimately this why his salary is inflated, it most certainly isn’t because he has any talent as a journo.
5 September, 2008 at 1:34 pm
“Palin is already using the “hockey mom” as a drawcard. So it is ok if you use it yourself but not if someone points out something else about your history or personal makeup?”
personally i think they are two different issues. one is the insinuation that a woman with her family responsibilities should be at home rather than taking on high pressure jobs, which i think is what rad was on about, and which i personally think is irrelevant. the other you raise is about her using her own private life and beliefs to craft a political narrative and appeal to voters. in the end i guess, people will judge whether her values and professional and personal experiences qualify or diminish her for the position, and it is fair enough in this context for the media to quiz her about how her values and beliefs might influence her policy-making and how she would respond as VP to a range of issues that cut across her beliefs – she is after all applying for a job that requires her to make decisions in the national interest. but to dismiss palin outright as unsuitable for the VP job simply because of her family situation or because she was in a beauty pagent in her youth is not a good place to go in my view.
5 September, 2008 at 1:36 pm
idlaviv what’s the name of the thread you posted on?
5 September, 2008 at 1:41 pm
A tradition of pulling your leg
5 September, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Idlaviv I often wonder how many of the comments are posted by Bolt moderators themselves. If they are paid by News Ltd to look after the blog I often wonder if they post up comments to make the blog seem to be more popular than what it is.
I think it sux that you have had the comment you posted against changed and you get abused for your effort.
I think that RobJ has a point. I try and limit my posts to one a day and replies. But I just don’t want the nest of News Ltd trolls to win. It is hard to give up as I feel the Bolt blog emboldens them to post their crap all over Aussie Newspaper blogs.
5 September, 2008 at 2:10 pm
from the ‘paris hilton of the blogoshpere’:
“Oh, really? This university-educated academic with his pale skin and European looks….”
“But the real joke is that Aborigines far, far darker than Rose – and from parts of Australia that actually have didgeridoos…”
so only dark skin people can claim to be an aboriginal. how fucking racist is this? and how much does bolt undermine his own view that there was no stolen generation for racist reasons with these statements? he’s a joke. and i just love the sheep who heap praise on him. simon of tasmania is right about one thing: he is a sucker. white or not.
5 September, 2008 at 2:33 pm
confessions.. fair point. My initial comment was raised with respect to the proposition that she is more “qualified” than Obama somehow. I was implying (obviously not clear enough) that she has more public spin doctoring than Obama.
The american people who bother to vote will decide if she is worthy for the VP role. She has a history of several backflips to allow her political career to prosper (even to the point of campaigning against her own mother in law)
5 September, 2008 at 2:37 pm
“I think that RobJ has a point.”
I have to confess that I do read the occasional thread there, morbid fascination – rubber necking if you will. Though I haven’t posted there in months!
My name is Rob, I’m a boltaholic – I’ve been clean for three months.
5 September, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Look guys, if you keep visiting Andy’s site, trying to make comments, you’re giving him (and his flock of idiots) what he wants!!
He’s a stirrer, thats all. Just ignore him. It’s the worst thing you can do to Andy, but I suppose it’s a way of passing the time (if you find it enjoyable).
Doesn’t he get boring for some people?
5 September, 2008 at 3:09 pm
dam buster your point about her claiming the experience upperhand is a valid one, and this is one of the issues i’m hoping the media will blowtorch her on. my view is she is a political lightweight with no national or international policy and decision making experience to draw on to justify her nomination for the VP. her rigid stance on some social issues scares me and i can’t help but think she’s just like bush!
i loved that the republicans are implying obama is a washington elite and then palin makes her sneering ‘community organiser’ comments. how elitist is that?!
5 September, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Those Bolt moderators are a slimy and cretinous mob. Bunch of sycophantic right-wing losers doing the bidding of their blogging master. If anything was an indication of Bolt’s generally woeful inability too make strong arguments and back them up with substance, it’s the utterly infantile games and behaviour engaged in by his moderators.
Funnily enough Idlaviv, and extremelly rare, your follow-up response has been allowed through. I would be overwelmingly surprised if even one of the blockheads that responded to your original post will post something changing their tune now though.
5 September, 2008 at 3:32 pm
confessions.. no dramas. If you read her political history on wiki (yes I know it can be biased) she basically sacks anyone who disagrees with her. From the librarian upwards.
Then she tried to get a heap of money form the federal govt (which she did and was accused by McCain for wasting it) and then canned the projects but kept the money! No mention of where the millions went after that.
Certainly different to Australia where the federal govt has put caveats on any funding (see Howard on the MCG and workchoices, Howard and EastLink tollway).
5 September, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Bloody amazing Chris. Who’da thought?
Just read this sucky tripe from Greg Williams of Perth (WhoCares) where he tells the Boltstrokers about his time over here…
A colossal fool if ever…
5 September, 2008 at 3:39 pm
yes i’ve been reading about her history. lots of unanswered questions and shady corners that make me even more suspicsious of her. of course once the media start asking these questions she and her cronies will play the media bias card.
5 September, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Interesting that your follow-up comment got through, Idlaviv. I have e-mailed Bolt to draw the modification to his attention.
5 September, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Bastards! Linking to Bolts site!!!! Making it too easy I couldn’t resist the temptation… I had a quick glance at Greg Williams’ post – LOL what a tool. What a sycophant.
5 September, 2008 at 3:57 pm
That’s hilarious Idlaviv. Its funny how Greg has gone back to his original posting name. Perhaps he thought that if he posted some long-winded kiss-arse post to Bolt, he would be allowed to return to posting under his original name. And all this after the kindness and understanding that was afforded to him here after Andy was mean to him last time. He reminds me of a high School kid running around and changing the groups that his sits with at lunch-time. I really don’t use this word lightly, but he is one pathetic loser.
5 September, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Good old Diesel.. Even ‘Ian of Queensland’ who does the boltwat-watch blog pips in. Gday Ian you fool.
So Greg thinks he is a big man for entering this site and others to stir shit until he is called a troll and banned and tries to claim the higher moral ground?
When did he post here under ‘who cares’ anyway?
5 September, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Chris – I now remember Greg posting at Boltwatch complaining how Bolt had threatened to reveal his identity and having issues with other posters on there.
I also noted Phil Maguire is posting again after leaving ages ago too.
5 September, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Idlaviv
funny how none of the boltards are rushing to apologise for attacking you now that the change has been outed. typical cowards. and what a cheap shot from the moderators. who the fuck are these people and do they do the same thing on other news ltd blogs i wonder?
5 September, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Yeah what does it take to be a Bolt moderator? Do these people get paid for it? I have often wondered about these things. So far, from the evidence presented to me, the criteria is that you have to be a juvenile imbecile, with the same politics as Bolt, and capable of sanctimonious and sickeningly patronising scorn about anyone who criticises Bolt’s rubbish.
5 September, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Buying into the whole Palin thing, I must say that I respect the fact that she managed to break through the old-boy establishment within the oil industry in Alaska.
I do get the sense however that she was only capable of doing this as a women, through an “only Nixon could go to China” phenomena, similar to the one the occurs in regards too her ability to garner and not lose votes amongst conservative and redneck males for McCain. Her right-wing Redneck, evangelist, huntin, coonskin cap wearin history, allowing many conservatives to be able to look past her womanhood in casting their votes, all the while applauding themselves for voting for a woman.
The fact is many people in the states, including the voter base she is mainly meant to attract, women, can see that her appointment is a pretty cynical political ploy, her tokenistic appointment symbolising little genuine progress for women within the US political system.
Its hilarious to see the Boltards, and other Rightards leap to her defence in the supposed support of feminism and politeness, given their past, including that of Bolt himself, of continuously bagging out other women in high positions of authority, who don’t push their type of politics. Its almost as bad as the logical contortions that they engage in attempting to argue that “conservatives” are the real supporters of the emancipation of women, and “the left” the ones opposed to it.
5 September, 2008 at 6:43 pm
at one point i thought the bolt moderators might be former liberal party staffers especially this year. those that lost their jobs last year had no other liberal govt to go and work for, his blog traffic has increased since the election, and bolts provides a like-minded haven of sorts. also whenever someone posts something critical about the libs there seem to be these never before heard of screen names that post corrections, even the most minor inconsequential stuff would be corrected and a link to hansard or something anal like that would be posted. nobody but an insider and nameless moderator would be able to pinpoint specific stuff in hansard, certainly none of his regular sheep are that switched on.
5 September, 2008 at 6:44 pm
The hypocrisy that the choice of Sarah Palin is bring out is hilarious. John Stewart had a great set of clips on it: http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=184086
5 September, 2008 at 6:53 pm
snap TZ! i was just about to link it.
his latest show from last night is available:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
5 September, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Hilarious TZ. Bunch of utter clowns in suits.
5 September, 2008 at 11:47 pm
For any boltaholics like myself and Rob, try posting directly on his column instead of his blog. Only a few of his trolls patrol there.
6 September, 2008 at 6:50 am
Idlaviv………I followed that link to Greg Williams, aka Kiwi ( couldn’t help myself )………what a suckhole. I wrote here before, Kiwi couldn’t care less about getting banned from here. His job was to cause as much trouble as possible ( by trolling ) then run back to Bolt and say what he has done.
When he crawled back to Bolt a while ago after even Andy had had enough of him it was sickening.
6 September, 2008 at 8:09 am
Boltholics Anonymous.
Just take it one day at a time RobJ, and with gods help you can beat this terrible affliction.
6 September, 2008 at 8:57 am
Thanks DbD – I value the support. One day at a time.
6 September, 2008 at 9:46 am
it seems boltards flirt with feminism has come to a crashing halt today with respect to new governer-general.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/not_the_speech_of_a_true_governor_general/P0/
“Andrew, Q is a man-hater from way back. Contemporary thinking = man-hating. It’s really weird that she is such a fashionista. She portrays everything she purports to hate.
TarraRose (Reply)
Sat 06 Sep 08 (12:10am)”
“I agree with you Andrew. I have pretty much similar suspicions that this “historic nomination” is going to end up being yet another former Sex- Discrimination-in-Chief’s Big Battle against this very oppressive class of dreadful white males who should feel sorry for just being alive…
Kosta of Australia (Reply)
Sat 06 Sep 08 (12:19am)”
no doubt radp who was so certain yesterday that feminism is the province of the right will be in there setting his peers straight.
6 September, 2008 at 10:26 am
“Andrew, Q is a man-hater from way back. ”
LOL – How can she live with herself! She’s been married to a man for 44 years and has three sons who are………….. Men!!
Jeez Boltards don’t let the facts get in the way of their hate filled, ridiculous rantings.
Ah well I suppose that at Bolts site all feminists or successful women are man haters, unless of course they’re rabid right wingers, then, they can do no wrong.
I guess Bolt and his band of sycophants feel intimidated by successful women, how sad!
6 September, 2008 at 10:34 am
This has been black listed at Bolt:
http://perezhilton.com/2008-09-02-what-did-her-mom-do-wrong
Ol’ Andy’s a bit sensitive to the freedom of speech issues. Mind you I think Perez is a bit of wanker too, he is on the radio at work and I do not like Perez or how he makes his money. Screw the Andy vs Climate scientists debate, Andy is punching way above his weight. I want to see Andy vs Perez.
6 September, 2008 at 10:44 am
Confessions and RobJ this hate for Quentin Bryce thread is a real mystery and shows Bolta up for the uninformed idiot he is. I am from Brisbane and Quentin Bryce is well known for her support of Womens issues. Many people have very kind words to say about her. She is a girl from the bush who managed to achieve in her work and family life. She is well respected in Brisbane. Bolt is really out of touch on this issue.
The John Stewart link above sums it up nicely for these folk and their attitude towards women. I just hope that this effigy burning pitchfork waving hate Bolt stirs up does not reach the MSM web pages. Bolt is soooo bitter.
6 September, 2008 at 11:45 am
And while driving into work I heard this woman on late night radio call in and say how, although all her friends were feminists, NONE of them liked Palin.
Kiwi/WhoCares/Greg Williams of Perth/Loner who breeds
Seeing how this wack-job likes to generalize about, hmmm, everything. I’ll take a stab that Greg’s job is either:
a) 7-11 attendant
b) Security Monitor watcher
or c) Cleaner
Bolt’s definitely addicted to his multiple page refreshes by allowing this plod to be allowed to return to posting his infantile shite.
6 September, 2008 at 12:27 pm
“I guess Bolt and his band of sycophants feel intimidated by successful women, how sad!”
Yeah isn’t it funny that a common theme amongst Bolt and his idiot minions, is continual bleating about how white men within our society are so maligned and discriminated against. Ignoring the obvious fact that white men dominate positions of elected high political offices, and overwhelmingly dominate the upper echelons of the corporate sector. And yet Bolt continually bleats on about how “the left” practices the “politics of victim-hood”.
On pretty much every issue that Bolt and his idiots so slatheringly and rabidly push their blindly one-sided and completely insulated views, they can easily be exposed as being complete and absurd hypocrites.
At least Andy’s teh left can show concern for for people unlike themselves who are being discriminated against or suffering difficulty in society, for the rightard its all about themselves, and how tough it is for them visa vis others, and how much harder and better they work than others.
6 September, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Very true Chris.
Teh Right aren’t one for compassion.
6 September, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“I guess Bolt and his band of sycophants feel intimidated by successful women, how sad!”
yes, because a successful woman is naturally taking a position that could of gone to a white man, those maligned and oppressed individuals who should just feel sorry for being alive.
what parrallel universe do these idiots inhabit? and more to the point why haven’t we nuked it yet?
6 September, 2008 at 1:27 pm
ahhhh yes, we’ve all totally forgotten now about women in positions of authority and cool it is. what amazes me is it was only yesterday (only yesterfuckingday!) the sheep were crowing about how the left is the enemy of women’s rights. now this:
“She is the perfect example of the dangers of tokenism. Just a silly female trying to sound as if she belongs in a man’s world.
kevin of Armidale (Reply)
Sat 06 Sep 08 (09:40am)”
my question is, why does andy allow such blatantly sexist bullshit to be posted on his blog?
6 September, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Disgusting stuff Idlaviv. I reckon the “Mecca Weather Forecast” shirt is worse though.
http://www.thoseshirts.com/forecast.html
What sort of sick, vile individual would market such stuff? And what sort of sick, vile individual would wear it. What rock did these creatures crawl out from under? The rabid right-wing freaks scare me.
6 September, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Certainly ‘disgusting’ is the word Chris.
And what sort of sick, vile individual would wear it whilst voting for their man who said the following:
‘We have got to clarify that that is not what the United States is all about (torture). That’s what makes us different from the enemy we are fighting, and Mr. President, the most important thing about it is not our image abroad, but our respect for ourselves at home.’
- John McCain
6 September, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Andrew seems to be concerned that Quentin Bryce is going to morph into an “activist judge”. The hilarious thing about his post and the sexist bloviating that it has generated is that the G-G has no real executive power. He is getting worked up into a lather about the symbolic – the fact that Bryce might give speeches that endorse values he disagrees with.
6 September, 2008 at 2:06 pm
They really are out-doing themselves in Bolt-World.
Any criticism of Sarah Palin shows that the left are against women in power, and now they’re getting stuck into our new G-G on the basis of her gender.
How do they do it without their brains imploding?
6 September, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Whocares (Greg Williams)!
What a sad little creature he is, and still breathing!! Poor little fella!!
6 September, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Chris,
Fear is what it is all about – fear and xenophobia (most of them are over outright racism these days, thankfully). That’s where the mock bravado and aggression comes from – it’s a reaction to fear of difference and also a reaction to their vulnerability and insecurity. Bolt is one of the most insecure people in the media – that’s why he spends so much time trying to justify himself and his views and tearing other people down. It’s why he peppers his blog with references to opera and high-browed reading. Unfortunately, you have to do more than just pour clean water over yourself to wash away the grime.
6 September, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Holy crap. Over 600 comments. Way to go!
Now I have to go back and read where I last left off. Damn you all.
6 September, 2008 at 4:20 pm
its time for new thread.
6 September, 2008 at 5:43 pm
The Boltster is jumping up and down about victory in Iraq again. Can he please tell us: What is it we’ve won? And why have you had to tell us we’ve won half a dozon times over 5 years?
6 September, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Bolt’s Iraq posts are like the Reader’s Digest sweepstakes – every few weeks, something turns up with big letters that read, “You may have already won peace in our time!” You think, “That sounds nice” and go about your life without anything noticeably different. And then the cycle starts again.
6 September, 2008 at 11:49 pm
To help my learned friends, suffering from being ‘Boltaholics’. I, bravely (as I am yet one to admit my affliction), entered the lion’s den to retrieve some jocular material to help sooth you through your insidious detox time.
Re: ‘Beyond the Palin’
She hunted moose with her dad.
They’ve got the blue collar and NRA vote stitched up.
Abu Chowdah
curious replied to Abu Chowdah
Sat 30 Aug 08 (06:35pm)
By FRANCIS THE SERIAL LIARS post I can assume the Democrats have they untrustworthy men who frequent “special mens bars” sewn up.
Imagine what sort of utter nutters this weirdo would endorse!
Figjam replied to Abu Chowdah
Sat 30 Aug 08 (07:02pm)
Curious aka Kiwi aka Greg Williams of Perth
My dear chap, I gleefully read your – largely incoherent and vitriolic – retorts to my posts.
I’d be bitterly disappointed and, indeed, feel physically ill if someone as vile as you were to ever agree with anything I said.
PS: Were you not banned from the forum for making threats to kill late last year?
Kiwi replied to Abu Chowdah
Sat 30 Aug 08 (10:02pm)
Figjam – I have no problem with “Curious” but he and I are not the same person (I formerly posted as Greg Williams).
Was I really supposed to have threatened to kill someone last year. I didn’t know it extended to that point. I get absolutely no protection from Andrew Bolt from pigs like you figjam (I guess I’ll be snipped for saying that) but I just want to point out that I have never threatened to kill anyone but if I did you would be a possibility.
Snip Away BOLT!
Kiwi replied to Abu Chowdah
Sat 30 Aug 08 (10:08pm)
One more thing Urquart, you’re the dipsh1t who claimed I was the Claremont Serial killer last year and you still got no friggin SNIP from Bolt or moderators.
Do I sound p1ssed off????
Am 1 p1ss1ng myself?
1 th1nk so….F1gjam n1cked a nerve.
Now, after my arduos tour, 1 must attend to removing my ‘C-vätskeskydd’ suit…
7 September, 2008 at 12:11 am
Bolt moderators — an anguished cry from Dr Paul Fidlon — can you tell me how to technically avoid this wretched double entry disease I appear to be suffering from? (Apart, that is, from suggesting I do send any blogs?)
I’d appreciate a private response. Thank you for your patience. PF
Dr Paul Fidlon of Armidale, NSW (Reply)
Mon 23 Jun 08 (12:17am)
Maybe your f**kin’ doctorate keeps hittin’ the back-button too quickly…
7 September, 2008 at 8:08 am
Bolt is going on about the great ” win ” by the Libs. in the west and it “prooves” the tide is turning against Rudd. But he is keeping all quiet on the so called safe Lib seat of Mayo where the Libs suffered a 10% swing against them and just got home AND the Nats have lost their safe seat of Lynn.
I know Bolt reads what goes on on here ( proberley to really find out what a fool he is )……..so please explain how the tide is turning?
Also, ( this is for Rad )….have you had a go at Bolt and his sheep yet for all their sexist comments.
7 September, 2008 at 10:42 am
Perhaps he could also explain the huge swing to the Greens while he’s at it, Geoff…
48% of the two party preferred vote.
I didnt realise there were that many ferals in the electorate of Mayo.
Bob Brown for president!
7 September, 2008 at 11:26 am
“You may have already won peace in our time!”
LOL the Bolt readers digest sweepstakes
7 September, 2008 at 11:42 am
“48% of the two party preferred vote.”
i went out last night and missed all the exitement, that’s HUGE vote for the greens. ins’t that downers old seat so should be safe liberal. if labor had a candidate with greens preference they would of won!
7 September, 2008 at 2:11 pm
The comments on Bolt’s “analysis” of the WA election results is like watching echo chambers collide. They’re all getting stuck into Milne for daring to suggest that the by-election results are bad for Brendan. My favourite quote:
“Milne might be just your typical impartial Labour voting journo (An assumption I know but then what other alternative do his articles present?) but he has a point about Lyne at least.”
Yes, the Poison Dwarf – chief water-carrier for Peter Costello – is actually of Teh Left.
7 September, 2008 at 5:21 pm
It’s laughable that Bolt criticises Milne as if he, Bolt, were the objective one. How self-deluded can a person be? Bolt can never, ever be seen as a commentator to be taken seriously in Australia. The only reason he’s on the ABC is because he was one of the “bias” squealors. Perhaps that’s why Bolt takes such an interest in the American elections – that might be where he has to go to redeem himself – if only momentarily until they realise too what a blinkered twit he is.
7 September, 2008 at 6:54 pm
TZ, Dean L, utterly hilarious isnt it. Greg Milne’s ‘leftness” getting in the way of his ability to be objective. The thing about these Bolt drones
is they label anyone who actually is objective at all as suffering from left bias if they ever say anything at all critical or pessimistic about their political side. The are delusional fringe radical morons, without a modicum of self-awareness or emotional maturity. I guess Costello must be “of the left’ since Milne is a regularly supporter, and Milne is a lefty lacky.
7 September, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Yep Bolt is the superhero of the journalistic world, bravely fighting against the evils of bias and subjective reporting, under the perfectly reasonable expectation that everyone should be as objective, balanced and professional as the standard he sets.
My favourite brave uncle Andy stance, is the one he takes against the evil University establishment, where Andy stands as a lone beacon of truth, calling upon all maligned students out there to call upon his judgement when they feel that they are facing left-wing bias through their studies. To all those evil lefty university lectures out there, your notice has been served, the Bolterator is in town, and he’s watching you.
7 September, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Chris I remember outside Melourne Uni, a couple of years ago, my Greens sticker got ripped off the back of my car.
First thought was it had to be one of the new f**king Bolterators.
Bolta’s much sprouted democracy at work…
7 September, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Hey Folks,
Would love to see some more brilliant new material.
Plenty to choose from methinks…
7 September, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Melourne Uni
1 obv1ously wasn’t study1ng Engl1sh L1tt…
7 September, 2008 at 9:53 pm
” I remember outside Melourne Uni, a couple of years ago, my Greens sticker got ripped off the back of my car”.
Probably one of Andy’s bias police at work. Maybe thats what Andy’s mods do when they arent screening his site.
7 September, 2008 at 9:56 pm
I think its time for a new column people.
8 September, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Yah. New thread is a good idea.
8 September, 2008 at 12:12 pm
CoB – I agree.. A couple of potential topics:
The obsession with the American electoral campaigns;
comparing Bolts compassion for Deveny with Barry Dickens and mental illness;
The almost word for word Dickens comment on Blair’s website;
Bolt’s Mayo spin and lack of mention of other losses;
8 September, 2008 at 12:32 pm
IS mental illness a problem on Bolt’s blog?
8 September, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Bolt’s Mayo spin and lack of mention of other losses;
As state ALP feeds on itself in WA and NSW, for Rudd and Swan it’s a case of Quick! Look over there.
The reality is that the ALP have huge problems that have developed over the last 4 days and it would be arrogant for Rudd to not take on board lessons to learn from this.
If Rudd isn’t careful, his government could be tarnished by the horrific state of the NSW economy.
8 September, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Only conservatives join the military according to Bolt, you know because lefties are all flag burning, country last scum.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_newly_conservative_obama/
I pointed this out on the first page, asking if they really believe the military is only full of conservatives, all the Boltheads said “yes, lefties dont join the military”
the mind boggles
8 September, 2008 at 3:10 pm
comic – One reply suggested that more republicans than democrats joined the armed forces which might be the truth. Interesting the sheep will contradict each other though.
8 September, 2008 at 3:27 pm
The facts on the breakdown:
“Forty-three percent called themselves Republican, 19 percent called themselves Democrats and 28 percent said they were independents. While the party identification of respondents in national polls moves around a bit from week to week, this was strikingly more Republican than the general population in the September 27-October 3 sample. There, 28 percent called themselves Republican, 34 percent Democratic and 27 percent independent.”
from http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/01/can-military-voters-deliver-mccain.html
8 September, 2008 at 3:38 pm
do they collect voting intention from the armed forces in the US?
8 September, 2008 at 3:46 pm
how do the boltheads feel about religion (apart from hating the mooozlems of course)?
this post of his comparing AGW delusion to those crazy catholics might even upset his flock
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/same_faith_different_prophets/
is he intentionally trying to rattle the cage?
8 September, 2008 at 4:23 pm
comijester it looks like a few of his sheep are unhappy wiht the comparisons too. a silly column.
8 September, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Andy backtracks…sort of:
UPDATE
Apologies to the readers below who are offended by the comparison. You are right: Catholicism is indeed more rational and benign than the green faith, and doesn’t demand forcible conversion.
Is he trying to look an idiot?
8 September, 2008 at 5:18 pm
He does not have to try to look an idiot, it comes naturally.
Bolt attacks the catholic church, the uniting church and moderate church beliefs, he is a supporter of GW Bush, S Palin and other extreme evangelists, all who have been condemned by mainstream religion. The extreme evangelists like Bolt, Palin, Bush, Falwell criticise mainstream religion because moderate christian religion does not preach hatred or justify destroying perceived enemies like extreme evangelism does.
Bolt and his ilk think the world is doomed and the only thing which will save it is the second coming of the lord. This lord they are waitng for is nothing like Jesus Christ but more of a old testament lord, who will crush and destroy anyone who does not share their extreme faith.
Andrew Bolt is like the crazy guy in the city square screaming ‘repent, the end is nigh.’ You can not debate with these people, they will never see reason as they have none. Posters on Bolts site are like a broken record, even sadder they spend their entire days, weeks, months there posting the same inanity over and over. To quote AB Paterson ‘Their eyes were dull, their heads were flat, they had no brains at all.’
8 September, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I thought Andy was a Catholic. I got that impression a while back when the Pope visited during World Youth Day. Andy defended the Pope … that was unexpected …
8 September, 2008 at 5:27 pm
confessions – re voting intentions of armed forces in the USA. I read one report (tried to link here but must in moderaton queue) that said 43% republican, then the rest split about half / half democrat or undecided/independent.
8 September, 2008 at 5:58 pm
“confessions – re voting intentions of armed forces in the USA. I read one report (tried to link here but must in moderaton queue) that said 43% republican, then the rest split about half / half democrat or undecided/independent.”
Yes but all left wingers hate America, so why would they join the army?
Is this how the Boltheads think? Help me out
8 September, 2008 at 6:41 pm
thanks dam buster. i’ll wait to see the report before comment further.
“Is this how the Boltheads think? Help me out”
sorry but i dont’ think i can. boltheads have a logic all their own!
8 September, 2008 at 7:37 pm
If Teh Left doesn’t enlist in the military then Bolt has contradicted himself. From his commentary on McCain’s acceptance speech:
The protester whose shouts McCain referred to as “noise and static”? Adam Kokesh, a veteran who served in Iraq.
8 September, 2008 at 10:13 pm
John Howard, Lex Downer, Robert Hill, Peter Costello, Piers Akerman, Andrew Bolt.
Military Service: Fail.
Must be Leftists.
I believe ‘conservatives join the army’ is a simplistic analysis of electorates with military bases (most of America, really) generally being safe GOP seats. The Republican Party is seen as the friend of the military (doesn’t waste money on inner city healthcare or schools), so even if you are ‘blue collar’, when on base you support the honey pot. Apparently being dicked around with constant deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan these safe military seats are beginning to waiver (saw it on Dateline so probably just a leftist lie).
8 September, 2008 at 11:58 pm
TZ, like all thoughtless partisan hacks, contradicting himself and going round and round in circles is a daily occurrence for Bolt. Regardless of politics, I think that the most conspicuous thing for me about Bolt, is the woeful absence of logical consistency and critical thinking in his arguments. As a tutor of high-school English, I say with no exaggeration that his “work”, would be picked apart by most year 10 teachers for these reasons.
Here’s another one from Bolt’s incredibly infantile and idiotic “global warming believers are just like Christian fundamentalists” column.
“Catholics believe love of money is the root of evil. So do global warming believers”
So from Andy’s logic here, anyone who believes AGW exists, also believes that money is the root of evil. Yet on any other day, Bolt and his idiot minions will attempt to argue that people like Al Gore and others publicly concerned about AGW,
are simply pushing a “myth” in the interests of personal profit, and that this then adds further weight to the argument that AGW is a myth.
Bolt also frequently post columns about rich and famous people who publicly espouse concern about AGW and yet do little to moderate their behaviour, as if this hypocrisy is symptomatic of the warped thinking behind concern for AGW, and further proof that its existence is a myth. Bolt’s then loves to take the line that’s its ok for elitists and rich and famous to espouse the need for action on AGW, but its much more difficult for average people living in the “real world”, of which Bolt is supposedly one of.
Kind of all makes he “people who believe in climate change think money is the root of all evil” look even more stupid.
9 September, 2008 at 9:45 am
confessions…
“Forty-three percent called themselves Republican, 19 percent called themselves Democrats and 28 percent said they were independents. While the party identification of respondents in national polls moves around a bit from week to week, this was strikingly more Republican than the general population in the September 27-October 3 sample. There, 28 percent called themselves Republican, 34 percent Democratic and 27 percent independent.”
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/01/can-military-voters-deliver-mccain.html
9 September, 2008 at 9:46 am
confessions..
formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/01/can-military-voters-deliver-mccain.html
Forty-three percent called themselves Republican, 19 percent called themselves Democrats and 28 percent said they were independents. While the party identification of respondents in national polls moves around a bit from week to week, this was strikingly more Republican than the general population in the September 27-October 3 sample. There, 28 percent called themselves Republican, 34 percent Democratic and 27 percent independent.
9 September, 2008 at 10:02 am
My old man served 15 years in the regular army and about the same in the reserves here in Oz.
He’s a shooter, a meat eater and a Greens voter. He even handed out Greens propaganda at the federal election.
But, as we all know, the left are morally suspect and unpatriotic to a man.
Another brainless generalisation from Bolt, a man who has never served his country.
A man who, in fact, has never served anything other than himself.
9 September, 2008 at 10:42 am
There’s a lot of analysis that could be done on the issue of the political leanings of the military and I doubt that Bolt would like the results. Factors like schooling and education level, military (and other)conditioning etc would be huge factors. Suffice to say, it would be quite a skewed sample compared to the general and other population samples.
9 September, 2008 at 11:04 am
timmy and andy just can’t let palin go. the photo timmy has of her today is fucking scary but i’m surprised he didn’t pander to his sheep and use this one instead:
http://guanabee.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-bikini-and-rifle-p.php
more the blair/boltard style i would of thought!
9 September, 2008 at 11:15 am
DbD
Wouldn’t writing speaches for R.J.L Hawke qualify as service to one’s country?
Just wondering.
9 September, 2008 at 11:15 am
Anyone else read this today?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24315169-7583,00.html
9 September, 2008 at 11:18 am
I loved in ‘Stop-Loss’ when Ryan Phillippe’s character said “Fuck the president!”
The stop-loss policy, in the United States military, is the retention of troops to remain in service beyond their expected term of service.
9 September, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Iry Tatered (?),
So what’s new? Someone suspects that the IPCC process is flawed and dominated by a few scientists that have an alterior motive – it doesn’t say what that motive is though. Yet this isn’t proven and the science still stands. More wasted space given over to conspiracy theorists by the Oz is all it amounts to.
And the criticism of Garnaut is inane – if he’d said he had the scientific credentials to ratify the science, he’d be called a liar. So he did what he’d been asked to do: Assume the scientist’s scenarios are reasonable and do the economics.
Who’s John McLean? Climate Data Analyst? So why didn’t he present any data analysis?
9 September, 2008 at 1:44 pm
“The snow season has been extended to October 5 on the mountain. ”
Andrew Bolt: One day a lot of former students will match what they were taught with what they can actually see, and then their lesson will at last be complete.
That’s right – they can’t see atoms so why should they believe in them Andy?
They can’t see the tropical cyclone coming so why should they believe one is on the way?
They can’t see global warming so why believe in it?
Listen to Andy, people – he knows what’s good for ya and he can learn ya.
9 September, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Idlaviv – I did see a couple of shotrs and reviews about the movie and how the policy has been implemented and has resulted in a generation of screwed up young people.
9 September, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Idlaviv – I did see a couple of shorts and reviews about the movie and how the policy has been implemented and has resulted in a generation of screwed up young people.
9 September, 2008 at 2:46 pm
“Listen to Andy, people – he knows what’s good for ya and he can learn ya.”
he’s been no where near as vocal on garnaut detailed report than he was with the green paer. he was hysterical then with almoat every post about climate change. but now, hardly anything. it’s harder to be hysterical convinceingly over economics and taxes than it is with global warming it seems?
9 September, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Uuuuummmm, how about an update???
9 September, 2008 at 4:13 pm
“Wouldn’t writing speaches for R.J.L Hawke qualify as service to one’s country?”
Actually iry tated, i dont agree at all.
His politics are conservative. When he worked for Hawke it was for the paycheck, not for love of his country.
Are you honestly suggesting that Bolt worked for the Labor party because he is a patriot?!
9 September, 2008 at 4:36 pm
A couple of notes from Boltworld today:
kiwi is back in;
no comments on the communism being commited by Dubya:
“It’s a move heavy with irony though. Here is Team Dubya and the Republicans, the ultimate proponents of free-market capitalism, pulling off the biggest nationalisation since World War Two.
The laissez-fair brigade which usually beys about the evils of big government is strangely silent as the taxpayer rides to the rescue of the banking system. They rarely contradict Wall Street and Wall Street has given its imprimatur in the wake of a euphoric rise in the rest of the world’s markets on Monday.”
business.smh.com.au/business/frannie-bailout-heavy-with-irony-20080909-4cij.html
9 September, 2008 at 5:27 pm
DbD
Was the Labor party paycheck better than the News Limited one?
Are you suggesting that Hawke was a patriot?
9 September, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Would you call Rudd a patriot? I’m reasonably sure his service record only includes working for the Labor party too.
9 September, 2008 at 5:42 pm
“Was the Labor party paycheck better than the News Limited one?”
I guess not.
“Are you suggesting that Hawke was a patriot?”
Nope.
He was a polititian, a different breed entirely.
9 September, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Dam Buster I tend to think the “government interference is evil” line is a bit of a ruse for many ‘conservatives’ when arguing that their side of politics is the more righteous. I think many rusted on Republican and Liberal voters kid themselves by attempting to argue that their voting intentions are primarily motivated by the desire for liberty. And that they are the true liberals, promoting individualism, with “the left”, wanting to impeded liberty and promote collectivism.
It seems to be a common argument pushed by conservative politicians and favourite theme by Boltesque type “conservatives”, these days. The reality being that what drives them primarily is social conservatism and nationalism.
This probably a good reason for the silence over at Boltville, and strange relative silence in the US at the moment, regarding this particular significant government intervention. If there was consistency and not other interests at heart, Bush and the Republicans would be receiving a shellacking for this amongst many of their own voters and supporters
9 September, 2008 at 7:15 pm
DbD
If you’re making assertions as to Bolt’s motives, don’t you think you aught make them based on more than a guess?
I guess not too i suppose.
10 September, 2008 at 8:09 am
timmy is one of 3 finalists in the news.com.au green awards. go tim.
10 September, 2008 at 8:24 am
that should be the “not good enough” green awards.
10 September, 2008 at 8:32 am
So what’s new? Someone suspects that the IPCC process is flawed and dominated by a few scientists that have an alterior motive
Dean you are in DeaniaL.
John McLean clearly exposes the deception in the mantra that the IPCC report was supported by 2500 scientist.
The IPCC encourages us to believe that about 2500 climate scientists supported the claim of a significant human influence on climate
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24315169-7583,00.html
He then goes on to rightly expose the flaws in Garnauts reports because he refuses to evaluate the validity of the IPCC report for himself.
Garnaut didn’t need to evaluate the science behind the IPCC’s claim to find that its integrity is questionable and that the report’s key findings are the product of scientific cronyism.
10 September, 2008 at 8:58 am
confessions.. re tim and awards. you are kidding? he should win it because of the reduced power associated with no one reading him anymore.
10 September, 2008 at 9:00 am
Tim Bogan Blair:
This is the only media award I’ve ever wanted to win
More like ‘This is the only media award I’ve got the remotest chance of ever winning.
What a monumental f**khead…
10 September, 2008 at 10:28 am
Timmeh is lamenting losing his license for speeding in Victoria. He broke the law but yet claims it is his right to speed above the state limit.
Better keep an eye out for him on the train..
10 September, 2008 at 10:41 am
“Better keep an eye out for him on the train..”
this is GOLD!!! timmy, anti green champion, pro V8 muscle head forced to rough it on public transport with the rest of the plebs. this alone should disqualify him for the award. if only the chaser were still around they could do a where’s tim blair on every train and bus in sydney.
lol!!!!
10 September, 2008 at 12:13 pm
blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/unslowness_penalised/P20/
is the link to the post regarding Timmeh’s lead foot.
“One weekend in Victoria last month driving a rental hatchback. Three tickets (all via highway speed cameras). $905 in fines and related fees. Licence yanked”
Oh dear.. You should see the sheep saying how it is ‘revenue raising’, ‘nanny state’ etc etc..
Too bad Tim – YOU BROKE THE LAW. How can he explain speeding on a road he is not familiar with?
10 September, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Well done getting a post up at Blair’s DB.
Tim:
Why do people still live in Victoria?
I dunno. Maybe he should ask his clan in Werribee and his enemies that chased the coward away…
10 September, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Jesus wept, is this comments thread still going? If nothing else, it might qualify as a record of some description.
10 September, 2008 at 1:28 pm
on other news:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/reheated-pie-is-back-on-the-menu-20080909-4cyf.html?page=-1
oh dear. not the partial mis-quoting by bolt again?
10 September, 2008 at 1:59 pm
so bolt tells lies through misrepretation on climate change and now can’t even interpret council documents properly without lying!
a fucking fraudulent hypacrite. isn’t there some ombudsmen or some media complaint authority that i can report him to, other than media watch which acheives nothing.
10 September, 2008 at 2:51 pm
the issue is confessions is that he can always claim that he is ‘commenting’ or giving and ‘opinion’ which is outside journalistic guidelines.
10 September, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Our friend Tobias Z wrote at Bolt’s Blog of shame -frequented by many extreme right hypocrites:
“Did they not notice that the sentence immediately before was about John McCain? Are they not aware that the lipstick phrase is one that has been commonly used in US politics, including by John McCain in reference to Hillary Clinton?”
Heh – I’ve heard the phrase in the excellent HBO/BBC collaboration ‘Deadwood” and that’s set in the times of the gold rush.. LOL – I’m sure Cy Toliver wasn’t referring to Sarah Palin..
10 September, 2008 at 3:12 pm
RobJ – Palin almost uses the same phrase about herself. From Bolt’s liveblog:
12.41pm: “I’m just your average hocky mum who signed up for the PTA.” The difference between a hockey mum and a put bull? Lipstick.”
10 September, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Thanks Dam Buster – I’m aware of that, I’m just saying the pig/lipstick thing is an American phrase that precedes this election campaign. It’s a pretty good phrase too.
10 September, 2008 at 3:33 pm
There’s an interesting comment by BVM on the 3rd comments page of the pig/lipstick post at:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/obama_digs_a_hole_with_his_mouth/P40/
It’s attributed to Jack Wheeler.
Is there any way that this can be mistaken for anything other than a racist attack?
And hasn’t racism taken a strange little twisted reversal in recent decades. The approach is similar to that Bolt uses regularly in relation to Aboriginal affairs: It runs along the line that, people that identify themselves with a non-mainstream ethnicity, race (or even religion) are racist or “separatist”) for claiming that identity.
It’s a bit like that classic line from an ex-President of Collingwood that went something like: “We don’t mind Aborginals, so long as they act like us white folks.”
10 September, 2008 at 3:36 pm
“the issue is confessions is that he can always claim that he is ‘commenting’ or giving and ‘opinion’ which is outside journalistic guidelines.”
opinion or commentary is one thing. but proven lying is completely different. his blog on those agw graphs proves it with posts from actual scientist and others who point to his misrepresentation. and then he posts exactly the same the next day or a coupla days later. LIES. this is surely a misuse of his publication?!
10 September, 2008 at 3:46 pm
“It runs along the line that, people that identify themselves with a non-mainstream ethnicity, race (or even religion) are racist or “separatist”) for claiming that identity.”
yep and haven’t the sheep pushed that whole “your australian” line instead of acknowleging ethnic differences.
the thing about andy (and timmy) pushing the whole palin sliming by the left is they did exactly the same to hilary clinton back when she was still running. bolt had a posts that were kind of saying ‘vote for clinton or your sexist’ or words to that effect.
10 September, 2008 at 3:49 pm
And, just to keep this thread going…
Andy: But a new technique for clinging to office is now embedded in our politics. Governments know they must give voters all the change once offered almost exclusively by Oppositions. They must change flagging leaders, so voters won’t change parties.
Perhaps there are benefits to this. After all, never have parties studied polls so keenly, looking for ways to keep voters happy.
But there’s also something sinister to it, especially with more states opting for longer, four-year terms. It’s this: never have so many voters been represented by leaders they’ve never checked or chosen. Is this democracy?
As Andy admits in the same column: He was an advocate for swapping Howard for Costello to change the Lib’s fortunes.
When it’s Andy’s idea, it’s two thumbs up.
Of course, Andy makes the usual assumption that he’s a bit of a smarty pants and no ordinary voter is able to see through this little ruse.
10 September, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Re: Pig in lipstick – Common American expression used in American politics by the Republican party. Obama was just throwing it back at them.
Re: Unslowness – 3x fixed speed cameras in one weekend = The guys an unapologetic idiot looking for a pole to wrap himself around. Tosser
10 September, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Mr Bolt argues that:
“But there’s also something sinister to it, especially with more states opting for longer, four-year terms. It’s this: never have so many voters been represented by leaders they’ve never checked or chosen. Is this democracy?”
I agree with his broader thesis that parties – the Labor party more specially given it is the only party to have held State government recently – do simulate change to freshen up their electoral appeal.
However, in asking rhetorically whether this is still democracy he ignores the fact that in all Australia states there is no direct election of a premier but rather the election of individual members who decide amongst themselves – more accurately amongst the members of the party with the majority of members in the upper house – who will be Premier.
No leader has been checked or chosen by the electors in a State as only those in the leader’s electorate can vote for him or her. So far all replacement leaders have already been members of parliament and so, therefore, have undergone the same scrutinty as the person they replace: elected by their local electorate.
22 November, 2008 at 8:55 am
[...] in early September, TBBWP commenter Idlaviv made this remark about the modification of a comment on Bolt’s [...]
Comments are closed.