Andrew Bolt - is he a credible journalist?

[dedja]

Yep, I'll give you that one ... it's an individual thing what one believes.

[straight talker]

one way to settle everything would be to get the top 25 scientists who believe and the top 25 scientists in the world who dont and let them debate for a day or two.

[dedja]

unless you try to decide who the top 25 are ...

[straight talker]

good point. well for a start lets have real qualified scientists not alarmists like gore and flannery!!

[redandblack]

one way to settle everything would be to get the top 25 scientists who believe and the top 25 scientists in the world who dont and let them debate for a day or two.

But Andrew Bolt only talks to those who don't, so we'll need a different platform.

[straight talker]

funny that so do the alarmists flannery and gore!!

[redandblack]

No facts again, st.

You're the only one mentioning Flannery and Gore. We're all mentioning the concensus amongst the world's scientists.

Andrew Bolt only interviews those who agree with him. I'm sure climate scientists would be happy to appear on his show, but they're not invited.

[Q.]

st, you obviously have no idea of the machinations of scientific analysis, the rigorous processes undertaken to ensure precise and accurate data, the accountability from peer review.

This is not a consensus of opinion (although it certainly exists), it is a consensus of scientific evidence!

[straight talker]

well id like to know why you believe that most scientists are believers and where you get that info from? wasnt there a scam uncovered some time ago in America from memory about 300-400 leading scientists witholding information about climate change and the information they were holding proved that they were being payed big dollars to lie? the info and facts they had actually backed up what sceptics were saying?

[Q.]

Never heard of the scam. And I'm sure we would have if it were true.

This is a scientific consensus (and a mighty one at that):

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

[fish]

This article pretty well sums it up.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system...

There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

[dedja]

I work in the higher education sector and I can guarantee that the researchers I know don't take too kindly being told what to do ... I suspect many others are the same

[straight talker]

i think you will find it did happen and i believe from memory it was called e-mailgate. A leading scientist from Tasmania who had passed away was a non believer and several people mixed up in the scam where heard to have said quote" theres one we dont have to worry about". It happened i tell you that. You or i could maybe google climate scams and see if it pops up. It was huge news so i fail to understand how you never heard about it, Selective maybe?

[Q.]

I wiki'd that shit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. However, the reports criticized climate scientists for their disorganized methods, bunker mentality and lack of transparency. Climate scientists and organisations pledged to restore public confidence in the research process by improving data management and opening up access to data.[10][11] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.

...

A. A. Leiserowitz, Director of the Yale University Project on Climate Change, and colleagues found in 2010 that

Climategate had a significant effect on public beliefs in global warming and trust in scientists. The loss of trust in scientists, however, was primarily among individuals with a strongly individualistic worldview or politically conservative ideology. Nonetheless, Americans overall continue to trust scientists more than other sources of information about global warming.

[redandblack]

The relevant excerpt from the BBC News story about this.


And Lord Oxburgh said that he hoped these "resounding affirmations" of the unit's scientific practice would put those suspicions to bed.

He stated: "We found absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever. That doesn't mean that we agreed with all of their conclusions, but these people were doing their jobs honestly."

st, almost everything you say on here is straight from Andrew Bolt.

Have you ever wondered whether he might be wrong sometimes?

If not, why not?

[straight talker]

yes most certainly but i also believe that he is correct a lot of the time. It is the same as me saying to you do think Garnaut,gore,flannery and the scientists that are believers are wrong sometimes? if no why not?

[Q.]

Bolt offers opinion. Scientists offer data and evidenced that undergoes the rigorous processes of scientific method and review.

There's plenty of evidence that demonstrates Bolt is full of shit.

[redandblack]

st, the difference is that many of us read widely about these subjects and make a decision based on that, instead of just reiterating what one discredited opinion writer says.

[The Sleeping Giant]

What is/has happened with Bolt's court case?

[redandblack]

I don't think any judgement has been given yet, TSG.