Andrew Bolt has been calling for Tim Flannery to resign over what he calls his “discredited predictions” regarding the potential for extreme droughts due to climate change. It got me to wondering, is there some kind of scale that you can measure discredited predictions against to figure out when someone is so wrong that they should resign? If there is, how would the Southbank Jester score given some of his predictions over the years?Lets kick off with one of my favourites, from September 2007.
This is moving fast. And it’s over.
UPDATE:
From my own calls, it seems to be true at least of one minister. Which must mean John Howard will quit as Prime Minister.
UPDATE 2:
Actually, it’s right of both. Costello isn’t stirring any of this, but is ready to lead. He’ll be prime minister tomorrow.
Ah those heady days of PM Costello, how fondly we look back on them.
What about Andrew’s ongoing obsession with declaring that Julia Gillard is finished? A meme he’s been persisting with since three months after the last election. Despite a leadership spill, countless failed motions to suspend standing orders by the Opposition, and continual screeching from her detractors Julia Gillard remains Prime Minister, much to the chagrin of Andrew.
Of course we can’t ignore Andrew’s determination to prove that there was no danger from the meltdown at Japan’s Fukishima Daiichi reactors, labelling anyone who reported safety concerns as fear mongers. I wonder how that’s going?
It will take thousands of people, and as much as 30 years, experts have estimated, until the last bit of fuel is removed from Fukushima Daiichi and the plant completely dismantled.
It seems that Andrew’s record of prediction isn’t fantastic. How can we trust Andrew’s predictions, how can we take his supposed status as a political insider seriously when he keeps getting things so wrong?
To paraphrase, Bolt must account for his discredited predictions or resign.
43 Comments
True, the Japanese have to spend billions of yen and endure massive disruption to life and commerce… but the upside is that Andy can keep warbling merrily that there have been nil fatalities from radiation exposure at Fukushima. And that’s the most important thing, really.
Are we talking about Andrew “the water may run out next June [2010]” Bolt? The man who said (in 2009) “… Melbourne’s water use shows a city headed for a disaster“?
(Yes, those quotes are indeed selective. I believe that’s how this is supposed to work – good for the goose and all that)
Be ready for the claims of persecution. This is (or will be) just another example of the left going after an honest journalist’s livelihood. Bullies!
Did anyone else notice that the thread that lamented “the left’s” jeering at a “conservative’s” death … didn’t allow comments? I can’t imagine why. I’m sure it wouldn’t be that every second post might be some equally vile attack on his imaginary enemy? Nah. That wouldn’t be it. I’m sure it was just an oversight.
And breitbart was no conservative. I’d be quite annoyed if I were a conservative and somebody put me in the same category with that bozo. Sort of like sensible progressives (like us) being lumped in with michael moore on his worst day.
Let’s not forget that the ‘scientific fraud that is anthropogenic global warming’ has been ‘on the verge of total collapse’ for many years now. Someone needs to tell the scientific community…
Wow, lucky Bolt isn’t on the payroll at the expense of us poor taxpaying mugs and having his predictions guiding Government policy hey ???
I trust there will be a few people around here resigning if Abbott gets in at the next election…….
Much worse, he’s a big mouth with zero ZILCH scientific credibility given wide media exposure to spread his opinion on it
Why?, same said media shrieked for it almost from the day Rudd stepped into office.
And nobody could have seen that weather extremes are perfectly normal because the climate has always been changing, and if it gets cold or wet that just proves that climate scientists all drive Ferraris, and it isn’t anyway. Communist-warmists.
Why do you hate the economy?
Bright Red Ferraris.
#LOLBolt on Saturday, July 09, 2011 -
The real threat to the media isn’t the News of the World
“I understand that most of the guilty have long left or been pushed out. I am told – but am not able to verify – that many of the frankly disgusting allegations are not true. I also understand only too well that this issue is being whipped up to hysterical levels by media and ideological competitors hoping for an advantage.”
“I repeat: I am told that many of the allegations being made are not true and the guilty are long gone. But that only compounds the public relations error that led to the closure of this paper.”
Wow, lucky Bolt isn’t on the payroll at the expense of us poor taxpaying mugs and having his predictions guiding Government policy hey ???
I’m sure there are plenty at News Ltd who are pushing for that very scenario. Well done for pointing it out.
@ Brown Bob (4)
If you look at Andrews original post, he makes no qualification that Flannery should resign as his predictions have cost tax payers (and really, have they? Is it purely Flannery who is setting the Climate Change policy within this country?) lots of money. His call for his resignation was merely because his predictions are wrong.
But you may be right in that Bolt was referring to these predictions costing tax payers (eg us, Flannery’s employers) lots of money.
So lets apply that logic to Bolt. Last year, Bolt not only got his predictions wrong, but also his “facts”. This resulted in a court case which he lost and cost his employer – News Ltd lots of money in legal fees. But no falling on his sword?
So why should Bolt expect Flannery to resign for:
– Incorrect predictions
– Costing his employers lots of money
when he is not prepared to live up to those standards?
What I was thinking would me an interesting experiment would be to automatically take the opposite position to any of Andrew’s predictions (whether I agreed with them or not) and at certain intervals (3/6/12 months) work out who was “right” about things more often.
If you look at his core themes or Labor leadership, Labor as an ineffective government at any level, Climate Change and refugees, as is regularly pointed out in this blog and elsewhere he’s regularly wrong. But I might be biased as I often disagree with his predictions.
So the hypothesis that could be tested could be:
Are you more likely to accurately determine an outcome if you:
- Flip a coin (random 50/50 chance)
– Go with Andrew Bolt’s analysis and prediction of an outcome
– Go against Andrew Bolt’s analysis and predictions of an outcome
I’m just not sure how to track his predictions seeing as the Harold Camping post has not been renewed?
From the ‘Why did MTR die?’ story on Crikey yesterday…
“2. Employ stars, not has-beens and wannabes: Andrew Bolt is a true talent, no doubt about it. But one 40-minute slot a day from Bolt does not a successful radio station make.”
Andrew Bolt ‘a true talent’?
Hopefully this is sarcasm.
Otherwise Skynet has injected News-bots from the future to poison our minds and alter reality.
Although this is amusing as ever I disagree with the premise. Although Bolt is usually (always?) wrong, I’m not sure that Flannery has been. What is actual quote that Bolt is talking about? I’m sure that Flannery would have made it clear that he was talking about climatic conditions on average, ie certain events would happen more/less frequently, rather than never happening again.
Angra – talent means ‘attract viewers or readers’. If Bolt was not read then we would not be discussing him now. So if I were wanting a right wing radio station to become profitable then Bolt is the type of talent I would need.
Does anyone know the truth of Flannery’s predictions? Did he really say something wrong, or has he been misquoted or quoted out of context?
Flannery’s three innocuous,decontextualised musings between 2005 and 2007 have provided Bolt with a good part of his meal-ticket for the last five years. Bolt will need to be monitored for withdrawals when Flannery moves on. Perhaps in Dr Finkelstein’s clinic…
The topic of Flannery’s so-called predictions has been covered many times here at PP, and I am surprised that Dave has not given the full story on this matter, because it leads newcomers to this site, like Trippi Taka, who is unfamiliar with the facts, to fall into the trap of believing that what Blot has said about Flannery is true. Blot has (deliberately?) misquoted Flannery, but the casual reader would not be able to know this, because Blot has not given references for these so-called quotes. And given the laziness of Blot’s readers, it is extremely unlikely that any of them would take the time to verify them.
Flannery did not make specific predictions about the future of rainfall in Australia, but rather gave a summary of best and worse case scenarios. Flannery’s so-called predictions as (mis)quoted by Blot and other deniers were merely the worst case scenarios.
I hope Dave would be so kind as to correct the record in this matter.
As for the real reason for the current deluge, it is largely due to La Nina. Seeing as this is the hottest La Nina year on record, it is consistent with predictions given by climate scientists.
Actually the number of fatalities from Fukushima is in fact the only worthwhile metric. You are too immersed in the ‘crisis’ and the woo fear of scary scary radiation to see that. Can we not forget that maybe 20 000 people died in the tsunami? While there are still zero deaths from Fukushima. Chernobyl killed about 50 people in total
“Actually the number of fatalities from Fukushima is in fact the only worthwhile metric”
Not at all. If the incident is going to inform our own stance on nuclear power, the economic and financial costs need to be considered too. Also the impact on surrounding communities and businesses.
Personally, I think nuclear is safe. Very safe. At least, statistically. And I think modern reactor designs can eliminate the single greatest risk- a runaway reaction.
When nuclear power goes wrong, though the price can be awesome to behold. Chernobyl directly cost russia, belarus and ukraine a couple of hundred billion dollars, and that’s not including the ongoing economic and social impacts to the region. And that’s an accident that some would have us believe was “vastly overstated”.
What you say goes both ways. You’re right, the relatively less injurious accident at the power plant shouldn’t overshadow the human disaster of the earthquake and tsunami. But we also don’t get to just sweep it under the carpet.
re wilful @ 16
Here that people? The only metric (I love how fatalities are just a metric) is death. Serious illnesses, including cancers, and effect on the environment are not important, so suck it up.
Oh, the humanity.
silkworm @ 15 is correct. On the #lolbolt thread in particular there have been numerous posts (mine included) pointing out the factual errors Bolt has made in his quotes of Flannery.
In fact I have even posted on the Bolt thread directly regarding his mis-quotes, however only 1 of 5 has ever made it through.
#16,”fatalities…the only worthwhile metric” for Fukushima? Don’t be simplistic,look at the real world consequences beyond body count comparisons. We have a ruined,radioactive site that needs to be contained then decommissioned at enormous expense of money and time. We have an extensive area of agricultural land taken out of production for a while, and displacement of residents. Fukushima’s effect is very much like an extra tsunami: the tsunami has contaminated thousands of hectares of ag land, and displaced tens of thousands for various periods,and Fukushima’s footprint of similar consequences extends inland beyond the reach of the wave.
Bolt is most concerned to get in early with predictions, because he can’t lose: he either gets to pat himself on the back when he turns out to be right, or he can rely on his fans not to give him any flak when (more often than not) he turns out to be wrong.
Other examples not mentioned so far:
1. His claim that the man responsible for the terrorist attack in Norway last year was probably a muslim – when there was absolutely no basis to say that at the time;
2. His repeated claims that the effects of the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill were overhyped/exaggerated: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_good_oil_on_the_worst_environmental_disaster_america_has_ever_faced/
In each case, the priority is apparently to get the predictions in early and to make them controversial. That way, he either look incredibly prescient later or alternatively he can rely on the morons not to remember what he posted last week anyway, much less to begin questioning his judgment for being wrong so often.
It just boggles the mind that someone can get things so wrong so often and still have a career in the media. Fair enough if the Hun are willing to employ him but he should never be invited on the ABC, for example.
wilful @16: Ahh yes, gross disfigurement of children born in the area after the fact isn’t a concern at all. Gotcha. Radiation = people food. Completely harmless. You know you really should stop getting your science lessons from Andrew “carbon dioxide is plant food therefore completely harmless” Bolt.
Andrew Bolt’s record on predictions makes me wonder if he’s on the CERA payroll, predicting Oil prices.
more FUD, eh?
yes of course there’s monetary cost.
Deziner, you’re pathetic.If you think that you know what I think about climate science you’re arrogantly wrong. Disfigured children? Puh-leeze, stop believing your own bullsh*t. The Fukushima “disaster” is a disaster of understanding credible scientific based risks by the mainstream media and lazy ideas of what radiation is and does.
Resign, Blot.
For those wondering what Flannery really said:
Lateline 2005
Landline 2007
Chernobyl killed about 50 people in total.
This is a “wilful” lie.
From Wikipedia: “From 1986 to 2000, 350,400 people were evacuated and resettled from the most severely contaminated areas of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. … Estimates of the number of deaths potentially resulting from the accident vary enormously: Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers. An UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that the death toll could reach 4,000 civilian deaths, a figure which does not include military clean-up worker casualties. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimate that for the broader population there will be 50,000 excess cancer cases resulting in 25,000 excess cancer deaths. The 2006 TORCH report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout. A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more. A Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.”
{Snip – We can’t publish that without getting nasty phone calls and letters from lawyers – Dave}
Not so much a prediction but he did seem to forget late last year that he had had a former fiancée. I can see how you could forget something like that. /sarc
“Gillard has no choice. She must please Wilkie, or be forced to an election she will lose so badly that she will be remembered forever as a failure”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/afls-poker-face-could-prove-to-be-a-challenging-punt-for-gillard/story-e6frfhqf-1226142178528
It really is quite easy. Pretty much everything Andy predicts fails to come true due to the well established Bolt Effect.
Here’s one to watch for this year:
China’s Coming Crash
“Gordon Chang says China’s Communist Party will collapse this year, even if it takes a year longer than he first predicted. The good times are over”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/chinas_coming_crash
[China’s Coming Crash
“Gordon Chang says China’s Communist Party will collapse this year, even if it takes a year longer than he first predicted. The good times are over”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/chinas_coming_crash
Like all Andy’s ‘predictions’ they’re the cowardly regurgitation of unsubstantiated wishful thinking he likes the sound of and rumor whispered across the office/email rather than anything based on evidence or testing.
Given that Michael Moore self-describes as more conservative than progressive (in his “White Men” book) I can understand that.
It’s the craziness that has infected the US polity that makes him seem like a lefty. Actually, he’s just someone with a fairly focused sense of what seem fair to individuals and who is in people’s faces about it — but he’s no kind of socialist. He does come over as have a genuine (albeit naive) passion for justice in a nebulous sense. It’s hard not to like him a little even if there are some cringeworthy moments. In a place like the US, he has shown some courage in pursuit of the good fight.
On his worst days he’s not much worse than on his best days, as far as I can tell.
All that matters is the power of the predictor.
If decisions are being made as a result of the Hypothesis being put forward, then that hypothesis needs rigorous testing.
What Andrew Bolt believes, for what ever reason, or proves using what ever evidence is of no consequence.
What Einstein believes requires questioning. The evidence Einstien produces needs testing. The experiments Einstein conducts need reproducing. After all he’s helping build nuclear weapons and we want them to work when we say so, not when they’re sitting in Cilo.
The power of the person proposing the hypothesis matters first. Then we have a look at the hypothesis. Tim Flannery has too much power for someone to be as wrong as he has been.
Decisions have been made to spend money based on hypothesis he promotes as beeing correct that could have been used to build more efficient health systems, education systems, welfare systems etc etc.
We’re not talking about a few $ million here and there. We’re talking billions. Enough to make a fair dinkum difference.
Flannery’s predictions and hypothesis have influenced decision makers, and he is wrong.
Comparing who said what and who is right or wrong is pointless. Who has enough power to influence decisions is what matters?
Therefore Andrew has a point.
Nick Smith,
Are you going on what Tim Flannery said or what Andrew Bolt said Tim Flannery said?
Smith Nick said:
So far, there’s no evidence that any prediction he has made has been wrong. If you can give a link to an authentic prediction Flannery has made that has turned out to be wrong, then let us have it.
It’s also unclear that decision-makers have relied in any meaningful way on Flannery’s advice. The basis for policy comes from two sources:
a) The scientific claims associated with climate change — this has been summarised in the IPCC reports, and in work carried out on regional impacts under various models used by the CSIRO and so forth
b) The policy options, most especially Garnaut and Grattan. Plainly too, this has a political dimension, and of course the existing regime needed the support of The Greens and Independents. Flannery’s role is principally about explaining the basis of government policy. It’s only in this sense that the government might take advice from him.
False Dilemma. No part of action on climate change precludes building more effcient health, education or welfare systems. If there is scope to devise and implement such things, then the government would be well advised to do these things. Presumably they’d be saving money and delivering services more aptly. One should note though that if they do, Andrew Blot will be opposing it. As far as I know, Andrew Blot has not actually proposed a policy in any of these areas, nor has he advocated any properly costed policy in any area. His appeal against “waste” is purely rhetorical and tribal.
Regrettably, Blot himself claims to be one of Australia’s most influential bloggers, so if the claims he is making are spurious or likely to predispose policy in some sub-optimal direction, then it is germane to take account of his predictive scorecard.
What Blot hopes is for self-fulfilling prophecy. He hopes the noise he makes will cause the result he predicted. Calling him a malignant narcissist and misanthropic bully would probably test the moderator here, so rather than do that, I’ll simply note that Blot’s conduct could easily give rise to that inference in those not positioned to know better.
The mistake they’re making with the assessment of flannery is that he’s not actually guiding government (any more). It would seem to me that both sides of politics have well and truly formed their positions on AGO – the ALP thinks there’s a genuine need to do something to reduce emissions and wants to be seen as a world leader, and the liberal party wants to win elections no matter what. Flanner’s “The Weathermakers” was probably fairly influential a while ago, but the minds are made up and the evidence kind of speaks for itself now.
So that’s not why he’s got The Job. The Job isn’t to influence the government, it’s to influence the public. That’s why nothing he ever says will be accurately reported in a NEWS publication – they don’t WANT him influencing the public.
Just out of interest, have any of the flannery-haters here actually come up with (or even seriously tried) an example of one of flannery’s “dud predictions”?
I don’t follow the back-and-forth all that closely, but my impression is that the challenge has been put out there numerous times, and I haven’t seen anyone accept it.
So what’s happening here? Do they just not care if it’s true? Are they going and checking and realising that it isn’t true, and quietly deciding not to mention it again? Col? BB? Have you got anything?
Just to spice things up, I actually DO know of an example of a quote from flannery that could be regarded as a dud prediction. I won’t explain why now, but it’s possible that he was just a bit … summarized … by the interviewer (when/if I explain where it is, I think that will make sense). But so far that’s the only instance I’ve come across. When flannery’s accused of wild predictions, he’s basically always being misquoted, and when the original source is checked, it can be seen that he’s making a perfectly sensible observation.
“Calling him a malignant narcissist and misanthropic bully would probably test the moderator here, so rather than do that …”
Seriously, in the few brief interactions I’ve had with bolta and the moderators, they’ve struck me as fairly sensible, reasonable people. AB’s even taken down a couple of posts for me after I’ve had poster’s remorse, no argument or even asking why. I can’t form a personal opinion of the guy, simply because his on-blog persona and those conversations have been so wildly at odds.
My own pet theory is he doesn’t actually believe much of the nonsense he publishes (I leave aside straight-up partisan political stuff – I also don’t really care about that). Partly because nobody (obviously) intelligent CAN believe it, and partly because (after several years of obsessive reading) I can’t help but see the way the articles are written around the facts. When something is written (IMHO) to be deniable, or to conspicuously leave out high-profile bits of information from otherwise carefully-researched and crafted arguments, then I have to conclude that the author doesn’t really truly believe it. I think it’s just a job. It’s how he pays the rent. He’s also since managed to get a fair bit of influence that way, which is a great pity.
I think students should read his stuff. When they’ve debunked about 20 or 30 of his threads, they’ll start to read all newspaper articles with the question “what aren’t you telling me?” permanently in their mind.
Now, obviously there’s that whole ANTISEMITE business … I still don’t really know what that was about. Something I wrote certainly got his goat. I tend to be charitable now and assume that he simply never got around to checking the facts before flying off the handle at me. I achieved my stated aim, though – he’s never mentioned that body-parts story since. Chalk it up as a win, maybe. On the other hand, I also don’t think he’s mentioned Dawkins since that other car-wreck …
Eh?
Zoot – thanks for the Flannery links. Nice to have at hand for when he is traduced.
MoC
Do you really think it matters at all if what he says and really believes are two different things? The damage is done, and worse, that would make him a fraud as well..
Either way, he’s a very bad person, or an extremely bad person based on your experience.
A few things
Smith Nick, your wrong on Flannery’s position (both his thoughts and what he is supposed to be doing) as far as I understand the climate comissions role is to engage the community, to educate them. Flannery is a good choice becuase traditionally scientist have not been great communicators but Falnnery as shown in The Weathermakers (and his other popular books) is able to breakdown the scientist so an interested person can understand it. That is what he is supposed to do. Your wrong on his comments as well but others have shown that.
Generally I believe the attacks on Flannery are co-ordinated and deliberate (Greg Hunt has done it recently as well) this is a transplant from the US, in their denial debate they have polarising figures Al Gore (becuase he is fat) and Michael Mann, the denialist know if they drop thier name into the debate it is a dog whistle for other denialists. Australia has not had that and so they tended to import that but it doesn’t resonate as well (we don’t really care about Al Gore in a negative way) so they have needed a local person, the powers that be have decided Tim Flannery is the person to deride.