Question: how can Andrew Bolt miss the irony of trusting nuclear “experts” while claiming climate change is a conspiracy?

Andrew Bolt is confused… he can’t understand why people are panicking about the nuclear reactor in Japan. Over the past few days he has been trotting out a range of “experts” and reports that “prove” there is nothing to worry about…

…and yet people are still apparently “overstating the risk.” (No, a nuclear reactor on the verge of a meltdown is nothing to be concerned about!)

A frustrated Bolt asks:

Question: why do people who think their government and scientists would always lie about nuclear power also think green groups would always tell the truth? How can you be so cynical about the one and so gullible with the other?

I actually blurted my coffee over the keyboard when I read that post.

How about we rephrase the question:

Question: why does Andrew Bolt think the government and scientists would always lie about climate change also think right wing think tanks and nutters would always tell the truth? How can he be so cynical about the one and so gullible with the other?

Well Andrew?

Because only one group of scientists is capable of lying?

Oh that’s right… your ideological filter is what does the trick.

About these ads

16 thoughts on “Question: how can Andrew Bolt miss the irony of trusting nuclear “experts” while claiming climate change is a conspiracy?

  1. john byatt says:

    that is nova’s paranoia , everyone who has posted at unleashed knows that you only get about one in four up if you are lucky, sometimes all, sometimes none,
    the goons at JG, old jeff believed that i was one of the moderators. again putting two and two together and like Go-eff himself getting three,

    the ABC has an unleashed article from a moderator

    paranoid, neurotic dunning krugers

  2. john byatt says:

    you have only mentioned two science articles since you have been here and got done on both of them,

    put up a monckton claim or carter claim then without running away back them with facts

    ,

  3. JeffT says:

    rossbrisbane,

    Back to the expertise of Dr James Hansen huh?
    His predictions have bitten the dust already.
    And he keeps repeating them, only further into the future.
    How embarrassing.
    Read or watched any input from Dr Clive Hamilton lately ?
    How embarrassing.

    At least Bob Carter is not stuck in a science consensus financed by huge government and industrial funding troughs.
    You quote the ABC’s “Unleashed” as a fair and unbiased program.
    If it’s the same program I saw Carter on, the poor bugga could hardly get a word in.
    From Joanne Nova ( who you all will ad hom, criticise ) summing up the ABC and it’s Unleashed program :-

    http://joannenova.com.au/tag/abc-unleashed-blog/

    You lot keep rubbishing Christopher Monckton. Monckton is a presenter with flare that makes him noticed. He states quite emphatically he is not a climate scientist -” here’s the facts as I see them – go and look them up for yourself “.
    This I have witnessed this statement at one of his presentations and also on Youtube.

    But as you lot have such strong views on weak arguments, any muck you can chuck at the realists is OK.
    J.

  4. Geoff Brown says:

    Gosh, Ross you make claims without substantiation.
    1. Not outside majority of scientific opinion, only, outside the grant for comment circle so, being independent can reveal the data.
    2. The Vostok adn Greenland Ice cores overturned the idea that Co2 emissions caused runaway global warming.
    3. Large mathematical errors, Ross? Can you substantiate that remark?
    4. His statements that others who support the idea we are entering a dangerous phase in our global climate are a vocal few is verifiable and consensus is a work of fiction made up by the disgraced climategate CRU.

    See http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/03/hide-decline-explained-by-berkeleys.html

    Sorry, as you have no reference to the rest of your comment I couldn’t force my way through the mud.

    • Ross Brisbane says:

      As anonymous on your site I posted link after link proving Muller’s science to be in the hands of some giant funding to the turn of 1/2 billion dollars courtesy of BP. You guys go on looking at very old articles from the denial sausage machine. Geoff and Jeff – I visited every single one of those arguments over time and I find your so called claims are either ridiculous, fringe science and wild fruitless exercises in maths implied genius that over turns everything. These are charlatans posing as spokespersons that are very selective, misleading in public talks, debunked science in Plimer, statistical weirdness in Carter, Monckton’s selective representation of scientists and the list goes on.

      Carter’s bad maths:

      In his paper Carter claimed:

      Yet even educated persons mostly have no comprehension that the overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas is water vapour a minor greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide causes less than 4% of the warming produced by all atmospheric greenhouse gases [8]; and that human emissions represent just a tiny portion (~3%) of that 4%.

      Carter has been making this argument since 2005 at least. Back then he was citing Steve Milloy as his source

      Ward corrects him:

      These figures are completely inaccurate. Carter (2008) cites as a source for these figures a page (Hieb 2003) posted on a website about ‘Plant Fossils of West Virginia’. One of the many erroneous assertions made by Hieb (2003) was that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is 368.4 parts per million (ppm) of which the anthropogenic contribution is 11.88 ppm. In fact, the current atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is 387 ppm (Tans 2010), having increased steadily from a pre-industrial level between 1000 and 1750 AD of 275 to 285 ppm (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007a). When other compounds such as methane are also taken into account, the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is estimated to be about 435 ppm of carbon-dioxide-equivalent, and increasing at a rate of about 1.5 ppm each year (Bowen and Ranger 2009). There is little dispute within the scientific literature that human activities have been the main cause of the increase of more than 100 ppm in the concentration of carbon dioxide since industrialisation (i.e. almost ten times the rise claimed by Hieb (2003)). The IPCC (2007a) concluded:

      “The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the preindustrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution”.

      ‘Knock, Knock who is there?

      Carter!

      Carter Who?

      Where is the Evidence for Dangerous Human-Caused Global Warming?’
      – The “Doctor”ed Robert M. Carter

      I’m Robert Edward Thomas Ward of Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment London School of Economics and Political Science Houghton Street London, WC2A 2AE, UK

      (Email: r.e.ward@lse.ac.uk)

      I’m Dr Carter and but who are you – you don’t exist!?

      Read on in this PDF.

      http://www.eap-journal.com.au/archive/v40_i2_02_ward.pdf

  5. Ross Brisbane says:

    Dr Bob Carter. This dear fellow seems to be outside a majority of scientific opinion. His claims are patently false and misleading.

    1. There has been no evidence coming from him of any great scientific discovery that overturns the established science that we maybe entering a period of Dangerous Global Warming.

    2. His charting and analysis has been proven wrong on many occasions inclusive of his paper which contained very large mathematical errors. It has been a very bad paper which was very poorly put together.

    3. His statements that he is of the normal science and others who support the idea we are entering a dangerous phase in our global climate is a vocal few is simply not verifiable and is a work of fiction within his own mind.

    4. His ideas over the years of his analysis has been moderated but only slightly. Initially he stated the world was cooling. Then he stated it was neutral. Now he states it has slightly warmed and his position has moved yet again.

    5. Dr Carter knows as well as I do that he DOES NOT agree with his fellow deniers of Plimer and Monckton on many issues. Yet his plays this pandering game to deniers highly confused about the science and incapable in sorting fictional maths from the laws of known physics. This makes Dr Cater an embarrassment to the broader scientific community.

    6. His claim of a minor group holding global science to ransom is patently false.

    7. His claim on the ClimateGate scandal is exaggerated and he makes this a highly charged political debate outside the realm of real science.

    8. He tends to be a political ideologue then a real investigative scientist.

    9. Many of his earlier videos of himself (2005) showing graphs of global cooling are patently out of date – yet this man who presented these to many has never ever bothered to withdraw them.

    This man Dr Bob Carter is now a MAGW proponent. This is a Mildest stance. He has shifted THREE times in his opinion. I predict he’ll shift again to a AGW advocate when we reach the threshold of 1 degree Celsius.

    Time will tell whether yet again he will ever bother tell his former audiences that he shifted yet again in opinion.

    And when do we reach the DAGW proof every denier is seeking. When we cross the 1.5 degree Celsius threshold. Perhaps much sooner then expected.

    Many theories will bite the dust by then.

  6. JeffT says:

    ianash,
    You lot really carry on in a somewhat childish fashion about Dr. Bob Carter, don’t you ?
    While a lot of your climate so called scientists are playing computer models, Bob Carter is out getting his hands dirty.
    I wanted to contact Carter last year, and he wasn’t available, due to him being on a survey ship of fthe SW coast of New Zealand, doing sea bed drill corings of paleo-glacier moraine sediments.
    A hands on, down to earth scientist. He is also a climate realist, and that’s what you “lot”don’t like. So you do the classic warmistas ad homs.
    “bag full of climate graphs”- have you seen the bag full of hockeyschtick graphs from Mannet al ?
    Sad really.

    Lord Christopher Monckton, yes he has a hereditary title. Has a flair for presentation, has a good collection of facts, but you “lot”don’t like him because he also is a climate realist. More ad homs from the warmistas, including shameful attacks on his appearance due to a health problem.

    Professor Ian Plimer,
    School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide
    Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at University of Melbourne.
    Professor and Head at the University of Melbourne (1991-2005).
    Professor and Head at the University of Newcastle (1985-1991)
    I feel that’s enough, but there are many more titles appropriate to his talents.
    And you “lot” “don’t like him because he is an outspoken climate realist and a mining geologist, so more ad homs.
    You “lot” never learn, a geologist knows more about the planet than any of your air headed climatologists.
    More ad homs to follow from your “lot”.
    As I said above – It’s a shame really – how you “lot”can just ad hom people without thought of their qualifications, achievements.

    What you all should be thankful to Chris Monckton for, is his exposure of the COP15 Climate Change Document at St Paul University.
    If you haven’t read the 181 page document, you should.

  7. JeffT says:

    I’m laughing to see you carry on so B3,

    Laughing because Bolt makes more money than you, and likes what he does.

    You want lying ? “There will be no carbon tax in my term of government”

    Or that delicious cartoon lampooning the PM, Greens, Oakeshott and Windsor-
    ” By 2012, there will be no Australian child living in carbon”
    If you don’t understand that line, I’ll explain it to you.
    J.

    • john byatt says:

      Classic Jeff, what a DOLT just fell off my chair, what a goose

    • john byatt says:

      here is another cartoon porkie

      Abbot, Truss, Minchin and TCS ” by 2050 no child on earth will be living in safety”

      • JeffT says:

        Yes John Byatt (B3 & B4 ),
        If the current government gets their ‘sacrificial’ carbon tax through, with the conditions set by the rabid greens, no child in Australia will be living in safety.
        Cold, starving and probably abandoned, does constitute a lack of safety and security. And it may take less time than the 2050 deadline.

        Why ‘sacrificial’ ?
        Because with a carbon tax brought into law by stealth, will result in the demise of the government. See what the ramifications are at present with the PM’s approval rating of 30% .
        A good Fabian in the form of Julia Gillard, is there to do a job viz. to get the carbon tax into law. If her head rolls as a consequence, so be it. As a carbon tax would be virtually impossible to repeal due to the financial and litigation implications, she will have done her job.

        And what does this carbon tax mean besides the financial hardship on this country and her citizens?
        Virtually immeasurable decrease in temperature by 2050 and beyond.

        That’s IF the CO2 paradigm holds up to the hype.
        J.

    • ianash says:

      JeffT, try harder young fella. Your laughing sounds a little hysterical.

      We need more discredited science from you. Where’s Bob Carter and his bag of magic climate graphs when you need them? Or Monckton? Even silly old Plimer!

  8. john byatt says:

    Classic DOLT, just fell off my chair , what a complete moron

    • Sherro says:

      I think his question about how much Gillards Carbon Tax will lower the earths temperature is a much better one. BTW, anyone here going to put up a figure for us to consider? I’d love to see the good news about the temperature reduction payoff we will be getting at the cost of mere billions.

      • john byatt says:

        Dolt claims that Australia can do little to help reduce global CO2 levels and rising temperature, this is an own goal in which he admits the problem but then turns to a seemingly rational excuse for taking no action locally .

        The Tragedy Of The Commons (Hardin 1968} is a well studied human phenomenon in which the common users of an at risk resource each reject needing to play any role in a solution. Canadian fishermen when faced with dwindling Cod hauls raged against controls that would have saved their own livelihoods. The Cod is gone
        .
        The global climate is effectively a shared natural resource. If every nation excuses themselves and decides to continue emitting CO2 unabated in their own self-interest, the consequent climate change will be a danger for all.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 771 other followers

%d bloggers like this: