Andrew Bolt - is he a credible journalist?

[Gozu]

From Crikey's Rooted blog, "Andrew Bolt, Lateline and the bias of balance"

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2009/ ... f-balance/

[McAlmanac]

Bolt's views, while I disagree with them in the main, are held by a reasonable sized section of the community. His problem is in being seen as a commentator. A commentator shouldn't actually be playing for one of the teams.

I thought Barrie Cassidy was going to tell him where to get off on last Sunday's Insiders.

[dedja]

I thought Barrie Cassidy was going to tell him where to get off on last Sunday's Insiders.

Barrie did well. When Bolt tried to state that Joe Hockey didn't understand the climate science when he had a chat with him about it one time, Cassidy said something like ... that was only because you couldn't convince him to take your stance Andrew.

[GWW]

Andrew Bolt v Piers Akerman, who's the most credible

[dedja]

LOL, don't get me started on Piers ...

[Gozu]

This was in Thursday's Crikey email:

"Hey ABC, providing 'balance' is not as easy as ticking a box"

Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane writes:

Having decided to break my usual habit and actually watch Insiders last week, I remain confused as ever about that program’s selection policy for its guests. It was a poor and infuriating edition.

It appears that, despite the title Insiders, there are actually three types of guests -- actual insiders -- press gallery journos and senior political observers (such as the Kellys Paul and Fran); economists (usually the excellent George Megalogenis, but lately Michael Stutchbury -- yes, don’t be fooled by his reflexive hatred of Labor -- he’s actually supposed to be an economics journalist), and more generic commentators such as David Marr or Andrew Bolt.

Presumably the economists and commentators are there to make sure we don’t get too much gallery groupthink.

There’s also an apparent policy of balance, because a conservative gets put in the end chair, so I guess that’s a kind of fourth type of guest.

I’d have thought there would be benefit in having three actual gallery journalists on a program called Insiders. Last week’s edition was effectively ruined by Andrew Bolt, who knows nothing about the practice of politics (after he predicted "it’s on" about a right-wing threat to Petro Georgiou some years ago, Glenn Milne accurately riposted "the only thing that’s 'on' is whatever Bolt is on").

The ABC can surely do better with its selection of conservatives, unless it is engaged in some plot to make the Right look bad. Gerard Henderson is the only conservative regular with intellectual credibility, and he has actually worked as a senior political adviser as well. The less said about the unfortunate Piers Akerman, the better. But where’s John Roskam? Or Gary Johns, who has been in the thick of it politically, or Mark Wooden, or Julian Leeser? They’d make for a far more stimulating and watchable program than the current line-up.

The other thing Bolt did, of course, was instinctively turn the discussion back to denying climate change whenever he could, despite the clear interest of the audience in political analysis of the leadership crisis from Lenore Taylor and Phil Coorey. Bolt has done that so regularly on the program that the ABC could be readily accused of giving a platform to climate denialism.

Perhaps this is evidence of the ABC’s commitment to balance. In which case, it’s balance without judgement.

Climate denialism is on an intellectual par with 9/11 truthers, Holocaust denial and the ravings of the International Socialists. That is what the ABC seems to promote by way of "balance". Genuine climate scepticism rarely gets a look-in.

We seem to never hear from climate scientists who question the predictive power of modelling, or who have different views about the balance between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic warming, or who believe the effects of warming will be significantly less, or better for the world, than predicted. Instead, the ABC gives a run to the likes of Ian Plimer, a geologist who has no climate science credentials to speak of, or Bolt, a blogger, who repeatedly peddle the same false claims and conspiracy theories.

It’s time the ABC stopped treating "balance" as some sort of tick-a-box exercise where any old reactionary will do. It can significantly improve the quality of debate by better reflecting the intellectual depth in conservative ranks. And if it wants to bring balance to the climate-change debate, find some actual climate scientists to do it.

[Squawk]

Anyone want to amend their vote, either way?

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26459949-5006301,00.html


Tiger Woods does a favour for married women

By Andrew Bolt, December 09, 2009 07:15am

TIGER Woods has done every married woman a favour. Well, every married woman bar his wife, that is.

Now do you finally see, ladies?

Just study the pictures of the golfing superstar's harem - all those pumped-up breasts, bed-tousled hair and come-take-me eyes of women with may-I-light-your-cigar-sir jobs.

See for yourself and relax. There are women that men marry, and then there are these, who are strictly for play.

Here we have the type of women who may reach the bedroom, but rarely the altar.

To confirm what I say, now look at Woods' wife Elin Nordegren.

Yes, she's a former model, and just as beautiful as the others. But she stands out as the lone strawberry on a plate of tarts.

You know already which is the only one a wise man would feel safe to take home to his mother. To raise his children.

You also know instinctively which is the least likely to say yes on first meeting to a quickie in the car parked just outside a church. Which is the closest that Mindy "I thought I meant something to him" Lawton came to getting Woods actually inside one.

Not that many wives will quite appreciate such reassurances just yet, since their first instinct is naturally to take a five-iron to a philandering husband's head - whether it's their own husband or someone else's.

And right now it's Woods' already well-battered scone that most needs teeing off.

(Oh, I say: good shot, madam!)

My colleague Susie O'Brien, a young married mum, this week outlined that law of wives worldwide as she flogged Tiger with her tut-tuts: "Even rich, powerful men shouldn't cheat on their wives and children."

That, of course, is precisely why Woods' affairs are other people's business the minute they become public.

Lines must be drawn, you see, for the education of the too easily impressed.

Married women in particular must and will make an example of this breaker of vows, if only out of domestic self-interest.

Their own husbands - plumbers, teachers, accountants - must and will be warned that not even the world's greatest golfer, with all his money and fame, can be excused from the laws that bind the lowly.

Not even a Woods can be forgiven a bit of sex-and-get-out with some tarty waitress down the road. Forgiveness is especially out of the question while that tart's pouty pictures are studied with such close interest by millions of glad-eyed husbands.

No wonder Woods' sponsors are devastated. Woods will still be fine to flog the flashier bling and the gruntier cars to men of a certain kind - in that demographic that leers from Playboy to Versace.

But to sell domestic appliances to the sisterhood? This is a man who won't be allowed one step over the threshold of the marital home.

Yet I suspect many women will nevertheless have found a secret comfort in reading the details of each of Woods' alleged mistresses.

Take Lawton, a 33-year-old waitress who freely admits Woods used her "as his sex toy" and that "the only time he would call was when he wanted it".

He "never held hands" with her, she complained, and I'm not surprised. Holding hands is intimate. Not like their sex.

So, is that the CV of a wife or a mistress?

And the same could be asked of the rest.

Jamie Jungers is a hope-to-be model and Las Vegas cocktail waitress who'd parade for customers in her "Trashy Girl" lingerie.

Cori Rist is a swimsuit model and New York nightclub "fixture", whatever that means, to the party-party set, and Rachel Uchitel, who denies any affair with Woods despite being the first of his alleged mistresses to be ousted, is a nightclub hostess.

Kalika Moquin is a Las Vegas "nightclub executive", while Jamie Grubbs accepts the plainer title of cocktail waitress.

And now there's Holly Sampson, the ultimate just-for-sex accessory - a 36-year-old star of films such as Diary of A Horny Housewife and Emmanuelle in Paradise.

Sampson's lawyer said yesterday she had "no comment on the matter", and I'm betting she never made comments to Woods that mattered, either.

It's Sampson's emergence that seems to have been the last straw for Nordegren, who has finally stalked out on Woods, two weeks after being found standing over the bleeding rat with her golf clubs.

Aha! the married women will cry. That simply confirms we are right to damn Woods to hell. Even the merely slutty can destroy a good woman's marriage.

And, yes, that's true. But here's my bet: while Nordegren may move out of Woods' home, not one of these others will move in.

That's the difference.

[Gozu]

Andrew Bolt humiliated again:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/20 ... hip-media/

[fish]

Andrew Bolt humiliated again:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/20 ... hip-media/

Nice one Gozu that just demonstrates how the climate change deniers seem to make it up as they go along. When we experience the hottest year on record they call it "natural climate variation" but if there is a cold spell then it's "proof that climate change is not happening".

[Psyber]

Andrew Bolt humiliated again:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/20 ... hip-media/

Nice one Gozu that just demonstrates how the climate change deniers seem to make it up as they go along. When we experience the hottest year on record they call it "natural climate variation" but if there is a cold spell then it's "proof that climate change is not happening".

I haven't bothered to read the Bolt article, as I find him tedious in style, but the problem with "the hottest year on record" is that most climate records only go back to about 1890 which is almost yesterday in historical terms. The climate should be warming up from then because of the cooling that occurred between the early to mid 12th centuries and the mid 19th according to historical documents.

[The cooling is recorded as beginning with the advancing ice ended the Viking colonies in Greenland between 1100AD and 1150AD , and as peaking during the 18th century when the Thames is recorded as freezing over several times.]

[mick]

Andrew Bolt humiliated again:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/20 ... hip-media/

Nice one Gozu that just demonstrates how the climate change deniers seem to make it up as they go along. When we experience the hottest year on record they call it "natural climate variation" but if there is a cold spell then it's "proof that climate change is not happening".

I haven't bothered to read the Bolt article, as I find him tedious in style, but the problem with "the hottest year on record" is that most climate records only go back to about 1890 which is almost yesterday in historical terms. The climate should be warming up from then because of the cooling that occurred between the early to mid 12th centuries and the mid 19th according to historical documents.

[The cooling is recorded as beginning with the advancing ice ended the Viking colonies in Greenland between 1100AD and 1150AD , and as peaking during the 18th century when the Thames is recorded as freezing over several times.]

I am still somewhat sceptical on the human effects on climate change, unfortunately there is much mis-information on both sides. Ideally an extra 50 - 100 years of data would clarify the situation, but do we take the gamble? Certainly as you say in the past there have been dramatic variations in the relatively recent geologic past, as I recall didn't the Vikings refer to Greenland as Vineland because they found vines growing there? This would suggest Greenland was a lot warmer around 1000 AD

[Jimmy_041]

I agree with you Mick

I think there's evidence of our effect on the climate but there is so much bull$hit coming out of both sides of the argument, who knows who we should believe.

Both sides have been caught manipulating and deliberately misinterpreting data - but that's science for you, and as a matter of fact; politics

[fish]

Andrew Bolt humiliated again:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/20 ... hip-media/

Nice one Gozu that just demonstrates how the climate change deniers seem to make it up as they go along. When we experience the hottest year on record they call it "natural climate variation" but if there is a cold spell then it's "proof that climate change is not happening".

I haven't bothered to read the Bolt article, as I find him tedious in style, but the problem with "the hottest year on record" is that most climate records only go back to about 1890 which is almost yesterday in historical terms. The climate should be warming up from then because of the cooling that occurred between the early to mid 12th centuries and the mid 19th according to historical documents.

[The cooling is recorded as beginning with the advancing ice ended the Viking colonies in Greenland between 1100AD and 1150AD , and as peaking during the 18th century when the Thames is recorded as freezing over several times.]

I am still somewhat sceptical on the human effects on climate change, unfortunately there is much mis-information on both sides. Ideally an extra 50 - 100 years of data would clarify the situation, but do we take the gamble? Certainly as you say in the past there have been dramatic variations in the relatively recent geologic past, as I recall didn't the Vikings refer to Greenland as Vineland because they found vines growing there? This would suggest Greenland was a lot warmer around 1000 AD

Scientists have attributed the warming during the medieval period to an increase in volcanic activity and solar forcing during that period, phenomena that are not occuring to the same extent now. The phenomenon that IS occuring now is a dramatic buildup of greenhouse gasses due to the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use - this is what the overwhelming majority of climatologists and earth scientists blame on the current warming (warming which Mr. Bolt is desperately and sneakily trying to say isn't happening )

Thankfully governments and policy makers have accepted the clear scientific conclusion on human induced climate change and are now concentrating on mitigation and adaptation.

[Psyber]

Previous to the medieval period there are also historical records of the Romans growing vines in what became Yorkshire about 200 AD..
Are there records of increased volcanic activity then?

Apropos solar forcing - look at these cycles and where we are now in them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
http://muller.lbl.gov/papers/lbl-35665.html

And as for CO2 levels - look at these cycles...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

However, I do agree we should not gamble, and we should clean up our act..
In my opinion, this is best achieved by moving to safe Thorium fusion power and hydrogen fuel for cars.
Solar systems have not convinced me that can deliver adequate reliable power, nor that they are as "green" when you include the environmental costs of their manufacture.
Diesel and bio-diesel fumes contain potential cancer causing agents, as well as other nasty by-products of incomplete oxidation.

[mick]

Scientists have attributed the warming during the medieval period to an increase in volcanic activity and solar forcing during that period, phenomena that are not occuring to the same extent now. The phenomenon that IS occuring now is a dramatic buildup of greenhouse gasses due to the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use - this is what the overwhelming majority of climatologists and earth scientists blame on the current warming (warming which Mr. Bolt is desperately and sneakily trying to say isn't happening )

Thankfully governments and policy makers have accepted the clear scientific conclusion on human induced climate change and are now concentrating on mitigation and adaptation.

You misunderstood me, although I am skeptical, I think it is too great a risk to ignore the "evidence" of a mere 150 years of accurate records to do nothing. Unfortunately I think the horse has bolted, nothing worthwhile will be achieved unless the big polluters like the US, India and China etc. do something dramatic. Ther's about as much chance of that happening as having Mr Bolt write a complementary piece about the ALP.

[fish]

Previous to the medieval period there are also historical records of the Romans growing vines in what became Yorkshire about 200 AD..
Are there records of increased volcanic activity then?

Apropos solar forcing - look at these cycles and where we are now in them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
http://muller.lbl.gov/papers/lbl-35665.html

And as for CO2 levels - look at these cycles...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

However, I do agree we should not gamble, and we should clean up our act..
In my opinion, this is best achieved by moving to safe Thorium fusion power and hydrogen fuel for cars.
Solar systems have not convinced me that can deliver adequate reliable power, nor that they are as "green" when you include the environmental costs of their manufacture.
Diesel and bio-diesel fumes contain potential cancer causing agents, as well as other nasty by-products of incomplete oxidation.

Psyber I am not a climatologist or earth scientist and, I suspect, neither are you. As such there is no way we can critically analyse those articles you provide links for. However the thousands of scientists who have studied all the data from the prehistoric era right up to the present have unequivocally concluded that the current warming is (despite Mr. Bolts and Mr. Fieldings protests!) happening, that it is attributable to human activity since the industrial revolution, and that it needs to be stopped or minimised if we are to avoid serious negative social, health, economic and environmental impacts. End of argument in my view.

Sure there are a few dissenters, as there are in many fields. Just look at those who have published articles on the internet indicating that the earth is flat.

[fish]

You misunderstood me, although I am skeptical, I think it is too great a risk to ignore the "evidence" of a mere 150 years of accurate records to do nothing. Unfortunately I think the horse has bolted, nothing worthwhile will be achieved unless the big polluters like the US, India and China etc. do something dramatic. Ther's about as much chance of that happening as having Mr Bolt write a complementary piece about the ALP.

Agreed mick!

[Psyber]

You misunderstood me, although I am skeptical, I think it is too great a risk to ignore the "evidence" of a mere 150 years of accurate records to do nothing. Unfortunately I think the horse has bolted, nothing worthwhile will be achieved unless the big polluters like the US, India and China etc. do something dramatic. Ther's about as much chance of that happening as having Mr Bolt write a complementary piece about the ALP.

Agreed mick!

I agree with you both in general about the pollution issue too, regardless of whether any climate change occurring is humanity caused.

However, fish, the cycles on the graphs are self evident - you only have to look at the dates under the temperature peaks and the dates under the high CO2 peaks of the ice cores.
That doesn't need a science degree.
I agree I am not a climate scientist, but I do have tertiary level background in Physics and Chemistry.
This enables me to read the papers, and look at the data and assess the validity of its interpretation to some extent.

As I said in another post to Gozu, scientific truth cannot be set by majority vote - otherwise we'd have been stuck with the view that the atom could not be split, the sound barrier could not be exceeded, and the sun revolved around the Earth - or that burning materials gave out Phlogiston. All of these were once held as truth by the "scientific majority" of their time...
[And dissenters were persecuted in some cases...]

[fish]

I am not a climate scientist.

I thought so...

[Jimmy_041]

Seeing you deleted your comment Fish - I will do the same