Where does alarmism come from?
We need to issue a correction. In last week’s post titled “Good news for Pacific islands becomes bad news for global warming”, I quoted Andrew Bolt who in turn quoted this statement from The Telegraph:
More than 75 million people living on Pacific islands will have to relocate by 2050 because of the effects of climate change, Oxfam has warned.
In fact, this is what Oxfam said (my emphasis added):
People are already leaving their homes because of climate change, with projections that 75 million people in the Asia-Pacific region will be forced to relocate by 2050 if climate change continues unabated.
After Bolt quoted the same newspaper report in his column last Friday, the Herald-Sun published this letter to the editor from Oxfam:
Climate does pose a danger
ANDREW Bolt’s article, “Theories fall to take atoll” (June 4), quotes Oxfam as saying that “more than 75 million people living on Pacific islands will have to relocate by 2050 because of the effects of climate change”. The number of people quoted refers to the Asia-Pacific region, not just the Pacific islands, and comes from Dr Norman Meyers, one of the world s foremost experts on environmental migration.
I apologise for repeating the inaccurate statement. I also think this serves as an interesting example of how reasonable statements get turned into alarmist misrepresentations as they spread, which I’ll say more about below.
The discussion on my original post turned to whether we have uncritically accepted exaggerated predictions about global warming. The focus of my original post wasn’t on testing the credibility of the “alarmist” quotes Bolt made use of – I only pointed out that the specific new research he used in his counter-claims didn’t get a clear representation, especially when it came to its caveats and limitations.
But the misrepresented Oxfam claim shows at least one way that apparent alarmism can come about. It starts with Oxfam producing a report [3.3MB PDF] that cited the sources of their claims, that was worded to recognise that these are probabilistic forecasts (things that may happen) rather than absolute predictions, and that recognised not every case of displacement would mean migration to another country:
By 2050, approximately 150 million people may be displaced because of climate change[3]. Seventy-five million of these are likely to be in the Asia-Pacific region, with that number growing to around 150 million[4] by 2100. Many people will resettle within their own country, and Pacific island governments are already tackling climate change related relocation and resettlement. But not all people forced to leave their homes will have the option of moving within their country.
[3] Myers, N. 1993. “Environmental refugees in a globally warmed world”. BioScience 43, pp 752–761.
[4] Nicholls, R.J. 1995. “Synthesis of vulnerability analysis studies”. In Preparing to Meet the Coastal Challenges of the 21st Century, vol. 1. Proceedings of the World Coast Conference, Noordwijk, 1–5 November, 1993, CSM-Centre Publication No. 4, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water management, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp 181–216
Those key features remained in the Oxfam media release, although some detail was lost:
“People are already leaving their homes because of climate change, with projections that 75 million people in the Asia-Pacific region will be forced to relocate by 2050 if climate change continues unabated. Not all will have the option of relocating within their own country, so it’s vital that the Australian Government starts working with Pacific governments to plan for this now,” [Oxfam Australia Executive Director] Mr Hewett said.
The Telegraph‘s article actually included that direct quote from Andrew Hewett. Unfortunately, the quote was in the second-last paragraph, while their article opened with these headings:
Climate change to force 75 million Pacific Islanders from their homes
More than 75 million people living on Pacific islands will have to relocate by 2050 because of the effects of climate change, Oxfam has warned.
And that’s where the inaccuracies came in – “75 million Pacific Islanders” rather than 75 million in the Asia-Pacific region, and “will” rather than “may”.
From there, Bolt quoted the leading paragraph. Did he not read the rest of the article and miss the more accurate and cautious language in its body? Or did he read both and decide to go with the more sensational claim, which also happened to misrepresent what Oxfam had said? I don’t know, but the fact is that inaccuracy helped to bolster his claim that there have been overblown warnings from the green alarmists about rising sea levels, which made the value of the new research findings he (inaccurately) reported seem in greater contrast with the hype. And I didn’t pick him up on that first bit.
But once a misrepresentation like the Telegraph’s appears in an article, it’s easy to see how it can spread. Bolt quotes it; someone (e.g., yours truly) quotes Bolt; search engines index it; and on it goes. I’ve written previously about examples where the end of a chain of commentary about scientific reporting looks nothing like the claims in the scientific reports themselves. It doesn’t even require sinister intent, although it seems likely that some distortions will come via intentional selective and inaccurate representations. All it takes to start things is the careless choice of words, especially as the findings are condensed further and further to fit into media reports. And the key lesson, for me as much as anyone else, is that guarding against it takes time, effort, and the vigilance to read critically everything that is reported.
P.S. While looking over material for this post, I found my way back to something I wrote a couple of years ago about research on land loss in the Asia-Pacific region and how it is misused. My conclusion makes me think nothing much has changed:
So, there is Bolt’s detailed reporting of the new Bangladesh research. A finding that shows a small landmass growth unrelated to climate change gets turned into a rebuttal of the notion that rising sea levels could be a problem for a low-lying country. From this point, it can become another one of the “facts” that Bolt can state in any of his attack pieces on global warming, shopping bags, activist judges, or anything else where teh Left is a target. Leftists think we should respect human rights? These are the same Gore-worshipping bozos who said Bangladesh would sink into the sea.
And I’ll end by pointing readers to a much more concise comment on this point, courtesy of PhD Comics.
Nice deconstruction.
Clearly it comes from the same place as phobiaism, or ismphobia.
This is exactly what I’ve been talking about! The media tries to sex stuff up in order to grab people’s attention. They do the same with health research findings: red wine and chocolate being ‘good for you’ the classic egs.
Also I haven’t opened the Oxfam PDF (way big!), but did they really use citations that are 17 years old to reference the 2050 quote?
You’re claiming that Bolt has been “inaccurate” because he used an example of the use of inaccurate data to expose the use of inaccurate data. Come on. That is just insane.
Bolt said:
“…..as in this newspaper report just last year: “More than 75 million people living on Pacific islands will have to relocate by 2050 because of the effects of climate change, Oxfam has warned.””
If he wanted to attach the quote to Oxfam, he could have just as easily dropped the “as in this newspaper report just last year:” component. But he didn’t. He specifically welded the quote to a major newspaper – The Telegraph, and in doing so made the point that the error lies with a gullible media, willing to print inaccurate and unchecked statements.
Bolt is wise enough to know there’ll always be “experts” making outrageous claims. He takes issue with the muppets in the media that are eager to report on it, regardless of its accuracy. I believe he refers to them as “alarmists”.
But I do agree with Daniel. Nice deconstruction, even if it is the exact same point that Bolt’s been making for years.
It’s chinese whispers, but serving agandae. Each new reference is cover for the downstream quoters. I’m sure the “meme appendix” to The Selfish Gene would have something to say about it – the ideas that survive are the ones that appeal to the most successful propagators, I guess. And the most successful propagators are the ones who most reliably (and creatively/entertainingly) appeal to their audience’s tastes.
As an aside, it also seems to me that the most successful bulltish propagators are going to be the ones who can most creatively/entertainingly do that appealing, but also do it RELIABLY. Followers of the usual suspects believe them because they fit their idea of what “right thinking people” sound like, always. They’re reliable, predictable. You can go to them to get your preconceptions verified and be absolutely sure of never having them challenged. Reasonable, skeptical sources just can’t compete with that. Who would buy icecream without knowing what’s in the tub? Some might, but you’ll never corner the market that way.
Upyasmum:
Like this?
Your suggestion that Bolt intended to link the exaggerated report to the Telegraph and not Oxfam might hold based on last Friday’s column, but he didn’t do it in his blog post. And if he realised where the inaccuracy was and didn’t intend to smear Oxfam, he might have followed up the Telegraph’s statement with an explanation of how it was wrong.
Also, your suggestion that Bolt is “wise enough” to call out those “muppets in the media” who repeat “outrageous claims” from “experts” would have more chance of being valid if he didn’t constantly promote every dodgy pseudo-fact he reads from Watts, McIntyre et al.
Has Bolt explained/corrected the article now that Oxfam has contacted the Herald Sun? I didn’t see an update to his original post.
Nice try, Tobby but the quote you’ve taken here is indented, italicised, (partially) blue and underlined on the Bolt blog….That is, a link to the Telegraph article from which it’s taken. You know, as I do, that this is a standard approach to referencing online.
So, it holds.
Nice work on the “dodgy pseudo-facts” of Watts and McIntyre but I don’t recall either of them whipping up fear with predictions of 70 million climate refugees in 40 years, etc.
Still, keep pushing that line that it’s inaccurate for using an example of inaccuracy to expose inaccuracy. It’s solid as.
Upyasmum, once again defending a person whose legendary status as a serial retailer of other people’s fraudulence should alert any sensible person to check Bolt’s sources at every turn; which Tobias has done here, and gone into print to tell us; which Bolt certainly never does when he is proved wrong. He has not yet published any apology or retraction of his shameful accusations of fraud by the Uni. of East Anglia CRU, despite them being exonerated.
So shove it, Upyasmum, you’re in a place where the truth is preferred to propaganda.
Wether Bolt deliberately misled with his column or not, what this post shows is how misreporting of findings can be relayed to other news sources/blogs etc and further refined.
Upsya – Surely you can see that?
What Tobby has done here is something Andrew rarely does, apologises for misrepresenting someone’s research or at least reproducing the misrepresentation.
What Bolt does do is uses the articles and self references to try and tar the researcher, body (in this case Oxfam) with the representation as he has done in the past with comment like ’100m Marr’.
Just read Toby’s post from a couple of years back. I think these are relevent:
One of the reasons I think it’s prudent to be more sceptical of anti-AGW reportage is it’s more often than not distorted, even built on lies in order to push a particular political agenda. Over-hyped AGW reporting is more often than not based on research or other reports, however the media outlet may choose to report it, and whatever headlines they choose to give it.
Hear hear Tobias!!
I still think that the Oxfam report is deliberately alarmist (well, I mean that’s the whole point of what they’re doing), but fighting to stop Bolt’s misrepresentation of that report from spreading and taking hold is of critical importance to AGW credibility.
Bolt has effectively created a strawman here and should not be allowed to use it.
Mondo @12
You may recall Bolt on Insiders a couple of weeks ago being taken to task for referring to legitimate asylum-seekers as “illegals”. His sneering condescending reply of “Yes yes yes” summed it up: I know it’s a strawman but it’s my strawman and I’m sticking with it.
As usual extreme right wing ding dongs are telling us night is day…a wall of obfuscation and lies is ‘solid as’.
Shove it? Ding Dong?
Anyhoo, Monkeywrench, You might notice that the “fraudulent” information that Bolt passed on was from The Telegraph in London. Funnily enough, the point Bolt was making was that overblown claims are being made from arsehole to breakfast by a media shy on fact-checking. To prove the point, he used the “fraudulent” claim as evidence of “fraudulent” claims. It’s pretty standard stuff, really.
I can’t help it if you’re an idiot. That’s between you and God. But can I suggest that you at least try to understand your own argument before you go making grand statements like “you’re in a place where the truth is preferred to propaganda” because the claim that Bolt has misrepresented the facts here is just propaganda.
DBoP, Sure can see it. As I mentioned, Tobby has made exactly the point that Bolt has been saying for years. It’s also one of the reasons I’m personally sceptical that the cause, effects and forecasts of AGW are as they are serious as regularly made out.
Mondo, Bolt hasn’t misrepresented the report. He hasn’t quoted the report at all, rather the Telegraph article that misrepresented Oxfam’s claim. Let me repeat – he never pointed directly to the Oxfam report, only the Telegraph report, which he adequately referenced each time. (See every one of my comments above).
Quantize, I’m not sure where I’ve said night is day. If you (or anyone) could point out where I’ve misrepresented anything, please point it out specifically. Otherwise, I’m going to have to assume you’re just an upset windbag with an axe to grind.
But having said all of that, it is nice to see you guys now conceding that there’s somewhat of an industry of alarmism out there. We’re making progress.
‘an upset windbag with an axe to grind.’
LOL…from the mouthes of..
mmm but Upyasmum isn’t the point, or one of the points, that “facts” get misrepresented and the misrepresented facts are pounced on to suit the narrative of the writer – for example, Bolt ? Then they quickly pass into established “fact”. After that it’s hard to take them back – a bit like a criminal charge that is later dropped. No amount of explanation removes the suspicion that it is true.
Upsya – Umm the fact is that Tobby admitted the error. Bolt will not and he will use the same post in the future.
He is quite quick to claim any denialist propaganda as ‘fact’ but labels misreporting as ‘alarmism’. As far as I am concerned you cannot have it both ways. If he is a skeptic he should be skeptical of all views, not just the views he opposes.
Well Bolt confronted Australia’s number alarmist this morning on MTR and not once did Tim Flannery have an adequate explanation of his prophecies of doom? Alarmism begins and ends with Tom Foolery.
Hang on, let me get this straight….Bolt’s subject was the sea-level rise causing mass migration, but Upyasmum tells us “No no no, Bolt was commenting on “overblown claims” being passed on as fact…” as if Bolt actually agreed with the Oxfam projection but was tut-tutting about the slack Telegraph.
“I can’t help it if you’re an idiot” says Upyours: you clearly can’t help it yourself if you think you’re fooling anyone with this twisted justification.
DBoP, I’m not sure that Tobby made an error when dealing with the “75 million from Pacific Islands” claim. If he did, it was minor to say the least. Where I take issue with Tobby’s post is the claim that Bolt misrepresented Oxfam’s claim. He never did. He never attributed the figure to Oxfam but specifically to the newspaper – The Telegraph, each time.
It’s like slapping cuffs on a prosecution lawyer because he was the last one seen holding the murder weapon. It’s madness.
All Bolt has ever said is that a major newspaper claimed 75 million people will be displaced, according to Oxfam.
That they did.
No one here has been able to how me where I’m wrong, rather running an argument that Bolt is always wrong, so he must be wrong here, or that I’m a right wing ding dong towing the conservative line.
Monkeywrench, Nope. Never said that Bolt thought the 75 million figure was right. I’d bet the house he doesn’t. You seem somewhat agitated by my presence on this thread. Show me where Bolt has incorrectly attributed the figure to Oxfam and I’m outta here.
You won’t.
It’s hard to credit someone can stoically, repetitively, and against all sensible assessment, maintain the same silly assertions as Upyasmum does (unless, of course, they are Andrew Bolt).
Bolt quotes an article in the Telegraph solely to ridicule the supposed Oxfam figures….and Upyasmum maintains he wasn’t quoting Oxfam directly, so he really meant the attack to be on the Telegraph. Mind you, he never once mentions the discrepancy, or even the Telegraph directly in his pieces.
If you tire of taking Upyasmum to task, there is an upside. You may one day have to look after a person with Alzheimers. This is good practice.
Ouch.
Next time, Tobias, try some fact-checking BEFORE you robotically counter anything and everything that Andrew Bolt has to say.
“Show me where Bolt has incorrectly attributed the figure to Oxfam and I’m outta here.”
Great! He quoted the article, which attributed the statement to Oxfam, and (as noted by monkeywrench) did not say anything about the inaccuracy of the Telegraph’s claim. In the absence of anything indicating that he observed the discrepancy between the claim and the distortion of it in the Telegraph, why would anyone assume his attack was on the Telegraph, rather than Oxfam? He quoted the article as an accurate reflection of what Oxfam claimed.
Beclown yourself much, Upyasmum?
Blah, blah, blah, Monkeywrench.
Show me where Bolt has attributed the quote to Oxfam.
Until you, or someone, anyone, can do this, the argument is junk.
Should be simple.
Oh, and my apologies. Bolt said “a newspaper” when referring to the Telegraph. I said “the newspaper”. The error there is mine ….but hang Bolt for that too.
Wow, Alzheimers is THAT bad? Holy…
I have noticed a subtle shift in the media. It appears more and more denialist are conceding the earth is heating up (even Bolt said so on MTR this morning). Are we into the next stage of denial where, denialists can claim they are not denialists as AGW is accepted fact and the argument moves to the consequences of AGW. Of which the ex-denialists have a choice of three arguments.
1. There are no consequences of AGW
2. There are consequences but they are good to us
3. People who predict bad consequences are alarmists.
I think this will be easier for ex-denialists to argue because it is based on predictions without the need for evidence. They have had their fingers burnt when evidence demolished their ‘AGW isn’t happening’ position and they don’t want that to happen again.
Well Bolt confronted Australia’s number alarmist this morning on MTR and not once did Tim Flannery have an adequate explanation of his prophecies of doom
I have to say that I agree. I’ve read the transcript and Bolt wiped the floor with Flannery, who couldn’t even own-up to his own words. Flannery’s clear financial motivation for backing away from his previous support for nuclear power was also exposed by Bolt, whose adversarial journalism was very satisfying to behold. It’s rare to see a journalist so doggedly hold their interviewee accountable (even if it’s a journalist that I personally dislike with an agenda that I dispute).
If Flannery is AGW’s best spokesperson in this country then the movement is in enormous trouble.
Mondo, I did not know there was an movement called ‘AGW’ that employed Tim as their spokesperson. This is quiet a revelation, could you elaborate?
Oh dear PeeBee, now you’re disowning Flannery as a spokesperson for AGW eh? He wins Australian of the year for his work around Carbon Pollution advocacy and you can’t even bring yourself to identify him with the cause. How sad for Tim.
Mind you I can’t really blame you – I’d also prefer not to confront the slow-dawning reality that his alarmism was both overblown and possibly financially motivated. Easier to just pretend he wasn’t important to the AGW argument in the first place.
Oh dear Mondo, there is no such organised movement called AGW and you know it. You are just trying to a undermine a scientific reality with a person who has been called out making predicitons that may or may not come to pass.
Now you are saying AGW is a cause…. no it is not, a description of what is happening to the world – Why are you making this stuff up?
You are just trying to a undermine a scientific reality
What scientific reality am I trying to undermine PeeBee? Seriously – please identify this ‘reality’ for all the readers here so that they can see what it is that you accuse me of denying.
Good try Mondo, in the last few days you stated that you were aware the the climate was changing…. Your issue was ALARMISTS giving predictions on the effect of AGW. Have you now changed your mind?
Mondo, you need to LISTEN to the debate, in fact Flannery sounded very calm and countered Bolt’s attack well.
http://www.mtr1377.com.au/index.php?option=com_podcasting&task=view&id=41&Itemid=41
I am not disputing your call that Flannery has exaggerated some stuff to add to his celebrity and that he did stumble once at the end of the debate but I wouldn’t call it a win to Bolt. He sounded more of a desperate extremist, even Steve Price thought so, although he accused them both of being extreme. I think Bolt is clearly guiltier of exaggerating and misrepresenting the facts and you have to question his motive due to his ongoing ‘war’ with anything he calls the left.
Correct PeeBee – that is the argument I have been making (and continue to make).
So I’ll ask you again since you appear to have ducked the question; you accuse me above of “trying to undermine a scientific reality” – what scientific reality are you referring to? You’ve made quite a specific accusation PeeBee and it should be no problem for you to at least identify the ‘reality’ to which you have referred.
So come on – put up or shut up.
Sorry Mondo, you accusation is incorrect. My issue was that you were calling a name of something that is happening to climate a ‘movement’ or a ‘cause’. It is neither. If you want evidence of scientific reality, check why you believe AGW is happening, there is no need for me to prove something you already believe in.
I haven’t listened to MTR, nor have I read the transcript, but this is now the third time I’ve had to say this in as many days. Flannery’s predictions about Brisbane and Perth water supplies were bang on the money.
People forget now, but SEQ’s water supply got down to critical levels – less than 10% capacity IIRC. So Flannery was right to point out they could of run out of water – I think once you get below 5% or 4% the water is of questionnable quality for drinking. What saved the region was an ex cyclone that dumped something like 2 months worth of rainfall in the space of a few days. There was a post at LP about it last year which I’ll try and track down. Someone should send it to Bolt.
Flannery was also on the money with Perth, whose dams are at very low levels considering the time of the year, and with drought conditions predicted to continue in the state’s southwest this winter, when Perth gets *all* its rainfall. What has saved Perth is the implementation of a desal plant by the former government. Were it not for that, the city would likely be at critical levels as well. Bolt should also note that water restrictions for Perth were tightened for the winter months by the current government, the first time that’s happened since restrictions were introduced some years ago. Clearly the WA goverment knows something the Melbourne elitist does not.
I repeat: Brisbane didn’t cop it in the neck due to an ex cyclone, but Perth is touch and go with a persistent drought expected to continue this year.
Is that really mondo?
Hallelujah! It isn’t just me who’s noticed something odd about mondo.
I tracked down that post at LP. I was mistaken about the cyclone, which came later. The dumping was because of a low pressure system that moved northwards along the NSW coast. I’d also forgotten that people weren’t just on restrictions, but on rations – 140 liters per person, per day. Remarkable.
Also a follow up post from that one with BoM average rainfall. Please not the SW of Australia: below average for the past 3 years (1 year ago).
Bolt and his ilk just like to pillory Flannery because his predictions (which were bang on target) were perceived as alarmism to them because didn’t actually eventuate. This is just stupid – clearly it’s not alarmist when households have their water rationed, and as well as that it’s appropriate for people like Flannery to alert the wider Australian community about such issues.
Sorry Mondo, you accusation is incorrect.
Bollocks PeeBee – this is a direct quote from your post above:
You are just trying to a undermine a scientific reality . . .
It’s not difficult to understand – you accused me of trying to undermine a scientific reality. Everyone here can see it, and your pathetic attempts to avoid admitting your own argument effectively demonstrate just how empty your convictions really are.
You know as well as I do that there is no “scientific reality” that my posts seek to dispute, I have only tried to highlight the difference between legitimate scientific theory and unwarranted agenda-based alarmism from AGW advocates.
You don’t want to face up to the fact that you’ve allowed yourself to be lead by the nose by a bunch of fearmongers and alarmists, which is quite understandable.
Believe me, I know how you feel.
Is that really mondo?
It’s still me RM. It would be fair to say, however, that I have changed my mind about AGW and am now extremely sceptical about the motives (and knowledge) of most public AGW advocates.
I’ve always self-identified as a sceptic – I’m just arguing that position with a bit more passion now than I used to.
Mondo,
Let me spell it out for you. AGW is a reality that I think (although I am not too sure now) that you believe in. However you tried to undermine this reality by constructing a ‘strawman’. You do this by calling it 1. a Movement and the 2. A cause. I pointed out it is neither it is a description of what is happening to the world. This does not phase you as you have established to your own satisfaction that it is a movement/cause, and therefore must have a spokesperson. So you appoint Tim Flannery as such. As Tim may or may not have said things that may or may not be true, you somehow conclude Tim is not fit to be a spokesperson for this imaginary movement/cause and therefore the movement is failing. Hence I conclude that you are undermining a scientific reality. For heavens sake stop making stuff up, we have enough of that from the real denialists.
PeeBee @42
Yeah, I don’t get the “tim flannery is a spokesman” thing. It doesn’t really work like that. The facts of the matter aren’t affected by who happens to be talking about them. It doesn’t matter what TF says, or AB or (lord) CM or RW or anyone else – none of it actually changes reality. The idea that it’s a movement strikes me as quite odd. It’s not like an economic theory or a social theory – the reality of AGW is underpinned by facts, and we’ll get to observe those facts (one way or another) in due course. What tim flannery happens to say about it now won’t change that outcome.
I suggest just sticking to the facts. Me, I’ve decided that I don’t have the time to make up my own mind about the scientific arguments (but I’m not at all convinced that many other commentators have either). So I’ll leave the question of whether it’s real/not-real/a-problem/otherwise to the experts to nag about.
I AM happy to look closely at the arguments put forward by the anti-crowd and assess them on their merits and perceived (by me) level of honesty. I don’t do that necessarily because I believe the dire predictions about AGW, but because I just tend to find those people to be, well, strangely and consistently wrong about quite a few things that seem to suit a particular agenda that I don’t like. Others can take care of the pro-side. It’s good to specialise. Notice that I don’t say that AGW must be true because AB says it isn’t – it is actually possible for AB to be right, on occasion. I’ve even been known to agree with him. It’s possible that AGW really is a load of bunk, but I’m still happy to point at the holes in his arguments (which are sometimes very large), because it’s fun. But I don’t nominate him “spokesman”. He’s usually just repeating somebody else’s work anyway.
Is there any evidence of Bolt questioning Flannery at the time he made his statements about water, you know, at the time that households in SEQ were put water rations? Any evidence of him trying to ‘calm’ SEQ residents by telling them they need not worry what Flannery says? What about people in Perth? As the city was put on severe water restrictions, what advice did Bolt have for people there?
The reason I ask is that anyone can be an expert after the facts. But to question Flannery about his comments three years after he supposedly made them is a bit rich. Do we want our scientists to hold off on alerting public attention to crises just because the chattering classes in the media reckon poking fun at them makes good copy? And Bolt can’t have it both ways: either he puts his money where his mouth is and calls these things out at the time, or simply accepts that experts make predictions based on the available evidence at the time, and yes, sometimes it doesn’t pan out as predicted.
Andy’s had howlers himself: Costello poised to assume Liberal leadership (even after he said he was leaving politics), Arctic ice, global ‘cooling’, the oil spill off WA coast, and the latest from a week or so ago: Rudd to be gone in a month. I think Bolt just needs to take a powder, and simmer down a bit.
confessions @44
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/green_folly_drains_melbourne_dry/
Let me spell it out for you. AGW is a reality that I think (although I am not too sure now) that you believe in. However you tried to undermine this reality by constructing a ’strawman’.
Total nonsense PeeBee. My position continues to be that human-induced global warming is real, and that denying it is an idiotic exercise based almost entirely on ideological bias.
I have made no attempt to undermine the ‘reality’ that the world is warming and that we are contributing to it, only to question the integrity, motivation and knowledge of many of those who make predictions about what this warming will mean and who then use those predictions as the basis for personal advocacy. It’s not a complicated position to take yet you appear wholly incapable of grasping it – preferring instead to focus on semantic irrelevancies like whether those advocates can legitimately be described as part of a “movement” or not.
The bottom line is that slavish devotion to criticising only one side of the argument (for example Matthew’s odd admission above that he only assesses the merits and honesty of the anti-AGW crowd) is intellectual bankruptcy. There’s no search for the truth here – only a determination to barrack for your pre-determined position.
Thanks Matthew. But what about Flannery? Anything in the archives?
Actually, that link @ 45 is telling. Obviously Melbourne didn’t run out of water and the sky didn’t fall in – has Bolt apologised to his readers for his error in claiming the city needed a new dam?
Mondo, if that is your position, then you should just stick to critiquing these people. Declaring them as spokespeople for non-existent AGW movements does not help the credibility of your arguments.
“(for example Matthew’s odd admission above that he only assesses the merits and honesty of the anti-AGW crowd)”
I wouldn’t necessarily go that far. If I see a pro-AGW claim that strikes me as bogus, I’ll obviously think “that’s bogus”, but I’m not going to go online and post to blog sites about it.
“is intellectual bankruptcy”
No, it’s more a hobby. And I’m honest about it.
“There’s no search for the truth here – only a determination to barrack for your pre-determined position.”
And my pre-determined position on AGW is …. what, exactly? Did you read my post? Read it again.