When I was given a pass mark for first year Physics, it was on the condition that I find a discipline that I was better suited for, and yet even I understand the concept of acceleration. I wonder though, does Andrew Bolt understand acceleration? Are there any curved data sets in his world, or does everything progress in a neat, linear fashion?

I wonder this because Andrew Bolt has, once again, trotted out his 2007 conversation with the ABC’s Robyn Williams as some kind of evidence that climate change doesn’t exist.

“100 metres” Williams is already four metres down in four years
The red dot marks the date that Williams claimed the seas could rise 100 metres this century, or a metre a year on average, thanks to man-made warming

I feel stupider for even having to explain this, but here we go.

Setting aside the fact that it was Bolt who bought the 100 metre figure to the conversation, not Williams. And the fact that Williams didn’t actually predict that it was a likely outcome, only admitted that it was a possibility. And the fact that Williams tried pointing out differences between surges and average sea level rises, there’s still one very important problem with Andrew Bolt’s reasoning that needs addressing.

Even if you accept that sea level rises of 100 metres are possible in one hundred years, that does not mean that you think the sea will rise one metre a year, every year. Do we all understand this? Williams isn’t “four metres down in four years” because he never claimed that sea levels were likely to rise by a metre a year, except in Bolt’s retelling of the story.

Seeing as Andrew loves graphs, I’ve prepared some to exhibit different ways that sea levels could rise 100 metres in 100 years.

Picture 2.png

Well this doesn’t seem to be matching our observations.

Picture 3.png

Possibly…..

Picture 4.png

I seriously hope not.

Picture 5.png

Curvey is pervey.

So, even if you did take Andrew’s claim that Robyn Williams had predicted a 100 metre sea level rise seriously, that still doesn’t mean that sea levels should have been rising by a metre a year. I wonder why there’s this need to exaggerate, if the evidence is really so overwhelming?

(Visited 79 times, 1 visits today)