Bolt
tlambert | February 9, 2010Andrew Bolt has written a post where he pretends that comments made by Andrew Lacis about the first order draft of the summary of chapter 9 of AR4 WG1 are actually aboout the published report.
Andrew Revkin asked Lacis what he thought about the published report:
"The revised chapter was much improved," he said. "That's different than saying everything in there is nailed down, but I think it's a big improvement."
Overall, he said, "I commend the authors for doing as good a job as they did. That's the way the science process ought to work. You get inputs from everybody, find any bugs, crank…
tlambert | February 6, 2010Andrew Bolt claims:
In fact, the seas have not risen for nearly four years
tlambert | December 3, 2009Andrew Bolt claims that "new research" "once more shows Al Gore faked his findings in An Inconvenient Truth". He offers his own translation of something which he attributes to "Elsevier": (Yes, the company that publishes The Lancet.)
Frormer [sic] American vice president and Nobel Prize winner Gore has for years used the melting snow on Africa's highest mountain (5892 metres) for his climate propaganda. The snow cover is shrinking and that is caused by man and his greenhouse gases!
The Dutch scientist Jaap Sinninghe Damsté debunks this story of climate guru Gore in the leading periodical…
tlambert | September 26, 2009Ove Hoegh-Guldberg sends birthday greetings to Andrew Bolt.
If you don't know why there are seven graphs, see here.
tlambert | May 25, 2009That's the sound Ben McNeil's point makes as it sails way over Andrew Bolt's head.
tlambert | November 11, 2008Andrew Bolt, angered because I observed that he doesn't understand basic statistics, proceeds to prove my point, by referring to my bog standard Least Squares trend line as
a graph of temperatures over just the past nine months, with a line drawn kind-of through them:
So Bolt's been pontificating about temperature trends for years now, and posted lots of graphs with linear trends without a clue as to what they are.
Now that's just clueless, but the next thing that Bolt does is spectacularly dishonest.
In my post I was responding to Duffy's claim that:
For the past year, there's been a sharp…
tlambert | November 5, 2008On July 16, Andrew Bolt gave us this:
What consensus? The American Physical Society reports:
There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.
However, this wasn't the opion of the American Physical Society, but rather that of Jeffrey Marque, one editor of an APS newsletter. In the next issue Marque retracted:
Our editorial comments in the July 2008 issue include the…
tlambert | July 28, 2008Back in January, Steve McIntyre used some erroneous data of satellite-measured temperatures from RSS to argue that Hansen's 1988 temperature projections were too high. A week later he posted a corrected graph, blaming RSS for not making the error clear:
The fact that users are "falling into the RSS error trap" is one more good reason why RSS should have issued a clear error notice, rather than the obscure readme. They should issue a proper notice of the error in their public webpages and wherever else appropriate.
But McIntyre did not follow his advice to RSS, and failed to make a correction…
tlambert | June 19, 2008In his latest column, which is about polar bears or something, Andrew Bolt quote mines the NSIDC:
And ssshhh. Don't mention that the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre says the extent of Arctic ice is in fact "greater than this time last year".
That quote was brutally ripped from its context on this page, which says:
Arctic sea ice still on track for extreme melt ...
Although ice extent is slightly greater than this time last year, the average decline rate through the month of May was 8,000 square kilometers per day (3,000 square miles per day) faster than last May. Ice extent as the month…
tlambert | June 12, 2007Nexus 6 catches Andrew Bolt telling his readers about the latest crime of the evil climate scientists. From 1997.
Bolt said:
(Thanks to reader Michael.)
Well done, reader Michael!
tlambert | February 10, 2007You want to look away as this Andrew Bolt post comes off the rails, crashes and burns, but you can't. In his column, Alan Ramsey had quoted Tim Flannery:
"What we've seen in the Arctic over the last two years has been such breathtaking change that you have to worry about stability for sea levels and for the entire northern hemisphere climate system. The rate of ice melt in 2005 increased by about five times over what it was previously. It's been very, very large again in 2006.
"Now, if you take those two years as the new trajectory for ice melt in the Arctic - we've only two years of data…
tlambert | January 26, 2007Earlier I wrote about Khilyuk and Chilingar
their mistake is so large and so obvious that anyone who cites them either has no clue about climate science or doesn't care whether what they write is true or not.
So who has discredited themselves by citing them?
Robert M. Carter, C. R. de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany, David Holland and Richard S. Lindzen
Ron Bailey
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Andrew Bolt
Tim Blair
The Idsos
Pat Michaels
Pat Michaels went way beyond merely citing them, writing over a thousand words about how it was peer-reviewed and how the authors were from USC and how it…
tlambert | November 2, 2006In Andrew Bolt's latest column he sort of admits that Peiser was wrong, but still misleads his readers.
As Attard reported, I'd cited research by British academic Benny Peiser, who claimed to have disproved a survey that concluded none of a sample of scientific papers doubted the theory of man-made global warming.
That was a mistake, because Peiser now says he messed up some of his checking -- even though he insists "hardly a week goes by without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory".
Bolt implies that only some of the checking was wrong, but…
tlambert | October 30, 2006In 2004, Naomi Oreskes looked at a sample of 928
papers in
refereed scientific journals and found that not one disagreed with the
scientific consensus: that humans are responsible for most of the
warming in the last few decades. Benny Peiser disputed this, claiming that 34 of them rejected or doubted the consensus. I asked him for his list of 34 and posted it. It was obvious that there was only paper in his list that rejected the consensus and not only was that paper not peer-reviewed it was from the AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists).
Despite this, Peiser insisted that…
tlambert | October 5, 2006One of the things that gave Andrew Bolt 0 out of 10 on global warming was his misleading account of Severinghaus' research. Crikey reports:
Severinghaus told Crikey that he doesn't make a habit of Googling his own research, but Bolt appeared on his radar when a librarian in Brisbane wrote to him asking if "I'd really meant what Bolt said I meant".
He didn't. "Many, many other studies have found that carbon dioxide causes the earth to warm. This is not controversial, and to continue to deny it is akin to denying that cigarette smoking causes cancer," Severinghaus told Crikey. "The evidence for…
tlambert | September 15, 2006Andrew Bolt welcomes Al Gore to Australia with a column that accuses Gore of being "one of the worst of the fact-fiddling Green evangelicals". Bolt writes:
Well, here are just 10 of my own "minor quibbles" with Gore's film. These are my own "inconvenient truths", and judge from them the credibility of Gore's warnings of the end of all civilisation.
So let's assess Bolt's 10 "inconvenient truths". I'll classify them as either:
wrong, or
not wrong but misleading, Bolt having omitted other facts that undercut his position, or
a valid point about Gore's movie.
To get a passing grade Bolt needs…
tlambert | August 9, 2006Jake Young reports that bedbugs are back.
Andrew Bolt naturally blames greens: "Being green can make you itchy", because:
Before World War II, bedbug infestations were common in the U.S., but they were virtually eradicated through improvements in hygiene and the widespread use of DDT in the 1940s and 1950s...
Bolt thinks that the DDT ban in the US caused bedbugs to return. He's wrong, and it's the sort of mistake that people who don't believe in evolution make.
Here's what the World Health Organization says about bedbug control:
Houses with heavy infestations need to be treated with long-…
tlambert | November 14, 2005The Australian government's conclusion that the climate change debate is over has prompted a column from Andrew Bolt, who insists that there is to a big debate still going on. Bolt writes:
Just look at the big Greenhouse 2005 conference [environment minister Ian Campbell] department is sponsoring in Melbourne in a week.
See how free of yucky debate it is, with speaker after speaker picked to say, yes, man-made global warming is so true that we must, the organisers say, "work closely together to tackle this significant environmental issue".
There will be so little debate that one of the four…
tlambert | October 17, 2005Andrew Bolt hasresponded
to Tim Flannery'scorrection of
some Bolt's egregious errors. Bolt's primary tactic in his criticism
of Flannery is to go out of his way to misinterpret Flannery's writing
and then when Flannery corrects the misinterpretation to insist that
his strange reading is the only correct one. Bolt isn't even bothered
when his readings of Flannery are contradictory. Flannery wrote about
the relative stability of temperatures since the last Ice Age:
For the past 10,000 years, Earth's thermostat has been set to an average surface temperature of about 14 degrees Celsius.…
tlambert | October 9, 2005Tim Flannery has a new book The Weather Makers on climate change. You can read an extract here.
Naturally this has prompted the usual pieces on how global warming totally isn't happening. First we have William Kininmonth, whowrites:
The science linking human activities to climate change is simplistic and his arguments are assisted by the fact we are in a period of apparent warming. ... The focus on carbon dioxide as a driver of climate change overlooks the importance of water vapour as a greenhouse gas and the hydrological cycle's role in regulating the temperatures of our climate system.…