By Jeremy

Andrew Bolt does love a graph.

So, knowing how enthusiastically he reads this site, we’d like to present him - and you - with our own series of our favourite cherry-picked, out-of-context, irrelevant, misleading and probably flat-out wrong graphs and charts that we found on the intertubes, too. We hope he gets as much out of our contribution as we got out of his.

Pac-man percentages:

Mr T vs Fools:

MC Escher over time:

Death Star:

Construction:

Demetri Martin:

(Although I actually prefer the graph of his ability to draw mountains over time.)

An old joke:

I hope you found the above just as illuminating and conclusive on the subject of climate change as Andrew Bolt’s. We left out some of the sillier graphs we found in case this post was inadvertently MORE illuminating than his really very well researched and interesting and not in any way pathetically flimsy effort on news.com.au.

Because embarrassing the stubborn, buffoonish crackpot is not the aim of this site. It’s the aim of his.

By Tobias Ziegler (Cross-posted at Not A Hedgehog)

Acceptable:

Here’s how you take part in the show yourself, to raise the questions you thought the ABC would never ask.

Unacceptable:

As well as watching the program, please think about asking questions of Christine and the other panellists - about the Senate and balance of power, about the Garnaut Review, about appropriate responses to climate change, peak oil and the trasnport crisis, or anything at all that interests you!

Go here to submit a question online. Or you can SMS a question during the program to 197 55 222 - costs 55c including GST.

Acceptable:

Andrew your presence alone will raise the IQ level of the program by at least 3 notches.

Just a few tips suggested for your big night out.

When the music stops,you race for a chair of your likening-the centre one would be OK.That one harbours all Goose Jones’s auto cues & prompts.He simply can’t perform without them.

Don’t let Goose upstage you.If he introduces you just like he announced at the end of last week’s program as “Andrew Bolt-columnist & climate change skeptic”-challenge his reason for stating the additional introductory narrative.It should have no bearing on what is supposed to be an open forum of audience & viewer questions.Sorry ignore that-it does,as I forgot Goose personally selects all the questions & answers.

Take an aerosol can of disinfectant just in case you need to spray a particular chair offered.
You will know from past programs the chairs that need cleansing.We don’t want you picking up any bugs from past goons that may later effect your rational thinking.

Answer only questions from the floor.If Goose wants to distract & ask you his questions, suggest to him that he applies in writing for a interview on Fateline at a convenient date to you.

I think you may be surprised at the warm reception you will receive from the floor.There must be some clear thinking individuals sitting somewhere in the group.Surely all the studio audience can’t be fools or planted stooges ?

Can they?

Above all,just relax & enjoy the experience.Go get ‘em Andrew. Your fan club will be watching.
John (Reply)
Mon 07 Jul 08 (10:27am)

Unacceptable:

And Greens supporters don’t want me, either:

Oh no! I was looking forward to watching it until I read that Bolt was going to be on there too. Ah well, give ‘em hell, Senator Milne

And:

As for the Dolt on the Hun, i expect him to recite the usual right think lies - don’t stand on your manners, Ms Milne!

I thought the Greens stood for a superior, caring-sharing morality, with group hugs and all?

By Jeremy

“Skepticlawyer” links to Tim Blair on the controversial Art Monthly cover -

I’m going to stick the graphic up next to this post (make your own minds up) and make a few comments in response to Tim Blair’s and Kim at LP’s posts on this issue.

Kim’s post was nearly a thousand considered words, including quotes, musing on the subject.

This was Tim Blair’s staggeringly illuminating effort:

The advertisement that follows is longer than the post.

And says more. Tim doesn’t specify to which bit of the interview he wants to draw his readers’ attention. He doesn’t make a point. He doesn’t, in fact, say anything at all.

By Ant Rogenous

Tim Blair never misses a chance to sink the slippers into The Age columnist Catherine Deveny. Here he is today, going disingenuously to town on her latest piece, deliberately misinterpreting her point:

Leftist Age columnist Catherine Deveny rejoices in price rises:

I’m glad the price of petrol is going up and the price of food is rising. It’s the only way that we’re going to stop, look around and realise what things are really costing us.

Not so long ago, leftists demanded things like “wage justice” and a reduction in the difference between low and high wages. Now they’re celebrating economic circumstances that hurt the poor.

[...]

But here’s the real zinger: “Now they’re celebrating …” 

And BAM! Entire hemisphere of politics: pwned.  

Except for one tiny detail: although Timmeh and his commenters take great pleasure in reminding us that Deveny is rather a big gal, I’m still fairly certain she’s only one person, and that her largely satirical writing only constitutes the views of one “leftist”.

Still, you can’t keep a persuasive, truth-seeking crusader down, can you?

By The Editor
Cross posted at GrodsCorp

Brendan Nelson has withdrawn the coalition’s support for an emissions trading scheme in the absence of similar schemes in the USA, China and India — a “pre-Howard position on climate change” as one journalist beautifully put it. Despite the fact that developing countries are never going to consider emissions trading if developed countries are not prepared to lead the way, Andrew Bolt thinks it’s a great policy from Nelson and the coalition.

Another brave but politically savvy call by the Opposition Leader… And Nelson’s demeanour in announcing this was also right. No histrionics, but still with a sense of moral purpose.

Nelson’s demeanour was right? Let’s take a look at the good doctor’s demeanour and moral purpose in making his policy announcement.

QUESTION: Are you saying there should be no emissions trading scheme until the post Kyoto arrangements are hammered out and China and India are committed?

DR NELSON: We must be ready to implement an emissions trading scheme as a market-based solution to address climate change and Australia’s contribution to it…

He then continues to dither for two more paragraphs, before providing a more solid answer to the next question.

QUESTION: Dr Nelson [inaudible] clear, regardless of when the start date of am emissions trading scheme would be, if we got to it and China, India and the US were not signed on, you would say that we should not start the scheme?

DR NELSON: We should not start an emissions trading scheme in Australia until we are absolutely confident that it is ready to commence and also that the rest of the world has a start date for dealing with climate change itself.

Okay. But there’s more detail needed.

QUESTION: Dr Nelson you appear to be adopting a sort of a pre-Howard position on climate change; that you’re not even committed to an emissions trading scheme in 2011-12 in the absence of further agreement at Copenhagen. Is that correct and have you given any thought at all to the detail? For example, would you support a slow start to a scheme if it did get up and running with fixed low prices for permits in the early years? Or alternatively the phasing in of different industries?

DR NELSON: Well, again the Coalition’s position has been for the best part of a decade that the whole world has to act…

Then two more paragraphs containing no details about how Doc Nelson thinks Australia should act.

QUESTION: So you’re no longer committed to a 2012 start date for an emissions trading scheme?

DR NELSON: Well again, we have always said that there has to be a genuinely global response…

So, “no” then?

QUESTION: Yes but Dr Nelson, that’s a [inaudible] change of policy… You’re saying that you’ve changed the policy?

DR NELSON: Well, what I’m saying to you is that there has to be a genuinely global response to climate change. That has always been our position. It always will be. Australia acting alone will be an exercise in environmental futility that will be destructive to our economic future. That has always been our position and it continues to be so. We would, we would expect…

QUESTION: But the answer is yes.

DR NELSON: No it’s not.

You poor, poor man, Brendy. I feel sorry for you.

QUESTION: And in the absence of a global agreement at that meeting, your commitment to an emissions trading in 2012 is subject to that, is that what you’re saying?

DR NELSON: Again…

QUESTION: It’s just a little unclear.

DR NELSON: Again, we will annunciate (sic) our policy, under my leadership, once we have carefully examined the Garnaut Report, the green paper, the other sources of expert advice that we are taking, and we’ll have a well-considered approach to it.

Australia can’t wait for you to annunciate (sic) your policy, Dr Dither.

But there was one more humiliation waiting for the opposition “leader”.

QUESTION: Dr Nelson, you say, you say you’re worried about the Greens in the Senate, but aren’t you throwing the emissions trading scheme’s future into their hands if you aren’t prepared to negotiate with the Labor Government and provide your numbers in the Senate to an emissions trading scheme.

DR NELSON: Well you’re putting words in my mouth and that’s not true.

If I could just say one other thing in relation to the Art Monthly photographs…

As usual, when the going gets tough Brendan Nelson resorts to schoolyard retorts and changes of topics. And this is the respectable demeanour and moral purpose that so impressed Andrew Bolt. “Hmm. Have we (correction: I) misjudged the man? Is he growing into leadership material, after all?” asks Bolta.

Not likely.

By Jeremy

Andrew Bolt links to a frankly outrageous story about two British schoolboys being given detention for refusing to kneel down and pray when told to by their schoolmasters (obviously, since it’s got Bolt upset, they were being asked to pray to Allah) and mystifyingly concludes that it raises the following question:

How come the people most dedicated to human rights seem to be also the kind of people most dedicated to limiting your own?

What? The only people talking about human rights in Andy’s piece are the parents who are outraged by their children being given detention for not praying, and I can’t see how they’re “dedicated” to limiting anyone else’s.

Andy’s comment only makes sense if you approach it from his readers’ perspective -

1. Lefties advocate for the protection of human rights, which often includes talking about them;
2. Lefties oppose us discriminating against muslims;
3. Therefore lefties love muslims and endorse absolutely anything a muslim might do;
4. The people limiting these boys’ human rights happen to be muslims;
5. Therefore the lefties by not opposing muslims are dedicated to limiting these boys’ human rights;
6. People who talk about human rights are dedicated to limiting others’ human rights. QED.

That may seem a tortuous line of twisted logic to you or me, so facile and out of touch with reality that it beggars belief - but it’s like breathing air to the practitioners of Bolt’s creepy little subculture.

Read the comments - they heard the dogwhistle loud and clear.

By Jeremy

It’s all Garnaut, all the time at the moment over at Timmy Blair’s Echo Chamber of Wingnuttery. Take this morning’s enthusiastic endorsement of NSW Nationals leader Andrew Stoner’s attempt to argue why we don’t have to do anything until China does… Timmy summarises:

Australian politicians are becoming more vocal on how futile and destructive is a local response to feared global warming… Warmenists just want to hurt for the sake of hurting.

These are Stoner’s figures from the article to which Tim links:

“We can’t lose sight of the fact that Australia produces just 2 per cent of global emissions,” Mr Stoner said. “It’s one thing to say let’s all do our bit but Kevin Rudd must not trash the economy and send up petrol and power prices when our savings will be eclipsed by China anyway.

Since we make up only 0.3% of the global population, an emissions figure of 2% is pretty damn high - it means that each of us is producing on average SEVEN TIMES MORE THAN THE GLOBAL AVERAGE. China’s only producing so much more than us because there are so many of them - imagine if they took a leaf out of our books and used SEVEN TIMES MORE THAN THE GLOBAL AVERAGE too.

Anyway, Tim’s got a plan for tackling those numbers - reduce the figure to only FOUR times the global average:

Australia produces just 1.2 per cent of the world’s alleged global warming gases.

I don’t know what Timmy’s source is, but either he or Stoner are wrong. I don’t expect, as he continues to enthuse about Stoner’s childishly disingenuous campaign, Blair will look too closely into which.

Meanwhile, I am enjoying the likes of Blair and Bolt in their continuing efforts to find excuses for us not doing anything. The climate is not changing! Even if it is, it might not be catastrophic! Even if it is, we’re too small a country (even if we’re batting well above the average, good work guys) to need to do anything! They’ve got an excuse for everything.

I dread to think how long it takes their partners to get Tim or Andy to do anything around the house. The gutters aren’t full! Even if they are, leaving them probably won’t make them corrode and need replacing. Anyway, until the guy next door cuts that tree down there’s nothing I can really do about the larger problem. I’m busy! Make the kids do it. It’ll cost too much. My knee hurts…

Seven times more, people. Each of us. How can we expect developing countries to pick up our slack whilst we mock them by gaining the benefits of profligate consumption many times more than theirs?

By The Editor
Cross posted at GrodsCorp

In Bolt’s world there’s Left, there’s Right, and then there’s Bolt.

“…I’m not of the Right or even far Right. I’d certainly say so if I were. Try conservative.”

Reminds me of Andy’s famous Left/Right/Anarchy theory.

…there is no arc between Left and Right - the extremes of both tend to huddle together at the collectivist end of a line that has anarchy at the other. I’m somewhere in the middle, moderate as always, trying to balance the claims of individuality and freedom with the ballast of the collective.

Looks a bit like this.

By The Editor
Cross posted at GrodsCorp

Oh dear. Andrew Bolt has gone into martyr overdrive today in celebrating the ten year anniversary of his column in the Herald Sun.

Here’s yet another page or more of me telling you what I think. Such arrogance.

And the worst is that this has been going on for a decade. In fact, it was this week 10 years ago that I was given this twice-weekly column.

Bolta reckons he’s learned a few lessons in those ten years. Let’s have a look at them one-by-one.

Lesson 1: Don’t be shy. If I don’t fill this column space, it’s sure to be filled by an even greater idiot.

Proof?

For instance, if I hadn’t filled this space with columns warning that then Labor leader Mark Latham had character flaws that could “completely destroy not just Latham, but Labor”, you’d almost certainly have had to read the exact opposite, given almost every other columnist supported him.

Truth be told, I didn’t realise that Bolta was single handedly responsible for Mark Latham losing the 2004 election. I was under the impression that Latham was single handedly responsible for Latham losing the election.

Lesson 2: Toot your own triumphs.

As shown. After all, when you start criticising fellow journalists, you’re up for pack-payback, and it’s wise to give readers some reason to think you’re not as advertised: a “village idiot”, “extremist”, “lap-dog”, “mad professor”, and, of course, “racist”.

Of course, Andy. You talk yourself up only to defend yourself. Nothing to do with being full of yourself.

Lesson 3: Facts seem barely to count against a moral crusade.

So Bolta has made it his stock in trade to counter with carefully selected facts that support his own moral crusade.

Lesson 4: The more moral the campaign, the less likely journalists are to tell the truth.

[...]

Here, for instance, are some of the facts which I found the more fashionable journalists refusing to report for fear the truth would destroy their Truth.

- The world stopped warming in 1998.

- No one can name even 10 Aboriginal children stolen from their parents just because they were black.

[...]

- Several people “helped” by euthanasia guru Philip Nitschke were not dying, or even in pain.

Name just three, Andrew. Just three. (Also, do you like the way he uses a capital ‘T’ for the other journalists’ “Truth”?)

Lesson 5: Reporting facts that others won’t will make you seem mad.

Oops.

Your seeming mad has to do with other things, Andy.

Lesson 6. But being wrong hurts more than being mocked.

At first that wasn’t so. Who wants to be thought evil or dumb?

But keep your job and your cool long enough, and the truth will quietly out.

If there’s one thing that Bolta has never been able to keep, it’s his cool. A shriller, more grumpy “journalist” the world has never seen.

Lesson 7: When facts alone don’t count, naming and shaming might.

[...]

I started to call Prof Robert Manne, the leading theorist of the “stolen generations”, its leading “propagandist” instead, and I challenged him: “Name just 10 truly ‘stolen’ children.”

Personalising it like this invites revenge, that’s true, and can seem too nasty. But it can also hotly prod a response when cold facts don’t.

Manne, enraged, decided to take our debate public - to the Melbourne Writers’ Festival - and the rest is history, Manne and his list included. Just name 10, Robert.

Oh, I see. All that shrill stuff is just a journalistic tool to out Truth (sic). Makes perfect sense.

Lesson 8 - There is no “everyone”.

When someone says “everyone agrees”, they usually mean everyone like them - and that is especially true when “everyone” is the teacher-preacher class that hogs microphones, pulpits and newspaper keyboards, drowning out debate.

And Bolta sure does have a hard time getting heard. He has a twice weekly, full page column in Australia’s best selling newspaper, he appears regularly on several radio stations, he is a panelist on Insiders, and next week he’s following in Timmeh Blair’s underwhelming footsteps and appearing on Q & A. Those damn lefties and their debate-stifling ways.

On the set of Insiders I had to be given the lone chair on the far right of the screen. This, because I had the nerve to share the judgment of most Australians over four elections.

Hearts fucking bleed, Bolta.

But what is the moral of Bolta’s tale of self-love?

And that brings me to the ultimate lesson I’ve learned over these 10 years: that it’s best to write for your readers, not your peers.

Some may think you a fool or a bighead and too often wrong. But if most figure you’re just trying your best to describe things as they are, you might just have a job for a decade.

And may you bring us regular doses of “journalistic” hilarity for another ten years to come, Andy. Happy birthday.

Guest post by Andrew Rose

Just thought I’d bring this comedy to everyone’s attention, and in particular Andrew Bolt’s skills in “graphical analysis” - ie: picking two arbitrary start and end points to support his point of view (completely ignoring the fact that these graphs indicate an increase in the mean over time).

NASA warming preacher James Hansen recalls that June day 20 years ago when he so memorably sounded the alarm about global warming:

On June 23, 1988, I testified to a hearing chaired by Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado that the Earth had entered a long-term warming trend, and that human-made greenhouse gases almost surely were responsible… My testimony two decades ago was greeted with skepticism.

Scepticism? I wonder why? Fast forward 20 years, and let’s see how that prediction in fact turned out, with the red dots marking the date of Hansen’s famous speech and his latest scare’um testimony:

Any 15 year old with a year 9 education would have laughed at this attempt at statistical analysis. Which I guess says a lot for those buying Bolt’s analysis of those graphs.