Andrew Bolt interview with Steve McIntyre from the Climate Audit blog, who exposed the infamous “hockey stick”, talking about the leaked emails that expose the warming scare.
Watch below:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I know you guys love Andrew Bolt because he opposes climate alarmism, but that’s a case of the stopped watch being right once in a while. Andrew Bolt has a terrible reputation in Australia, and rightly so – he’s famous for making deplorable and insensitive comments about migrants and ethnic minorities.
He’s actually one of the worst advocates to have – one might as well have Pauline Hanson advocating one’s position.
Nice work Guys!
Very thoughtful positions taken by Mr McI, carefully avoiding overstatement or use of pejorative labels.
RR
Facts are facts. If they come out of a unsavoury fellow’s mouth, it makes no difference. The AGW case was built on false information and unethical behaviour.
Who cares what talking head reads the story?
So you say Chris, others and may I add far more numerous have a different opinion of AB
@chris Watson
Andrew Bolt actually has a great reputation in Australia. His blog is one of the most read in the country and The Bolt Report out-rates even The Insiders which is aired just prior. Since Bolt left The Insiders it has become such a pale shadow of its former self. With few conservatives and many climate change head-nodders.
Fear not, there will be a writer that gets a Pulitzer Prize out of this.
The only question is who, and how soon.
« insensitive comments »
Aarrrrgh. I simply can’t tolerate this kind of intellectual terrorism. People can disagree about immigration, especially illegal immigration !
@chris Watson
Err who are you talking to? I do agree that he made incorrect statements which has been punished via legal ways for. But then again, James Hansen can say what he wants and gets away with it. Double standards???
Andrew Bolt has said what many people in Australia has thought and believe. You may not like it but that is your problem not Andrew Bolt’s. Facts are often viewed as offensive by the Left, that is because they dislike being exposed for what they are.
If Bolt says something that is clearly wrong on Climate, I would believe that even Anthony would point it out, much like the saga with Lord Monckton.
Chris Watson has it wrong – Bolt has a great reputation in Australia and has been persecuted by the politically correct nanny state that Australia has become for daring to speak honestly and forthrightly. He has a huge audience and a great number of supporters.
After the McIntyre interview, You Tube suggested an interview of Donna Laframboise by Bolt, worth watching – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYPwPXNazOs
I love Steve McIntyre. He is exactly what the Hockey Team should have been: reserved, cautious, and thoughtful.
Way to go.
Andrew Bolt was successfully prosecuted under Australia’s disgraceful anti freedom of speech law that makes it an offense to say something that could offend someone. This report in the Sydney Morning Herald [SMH] printed before the conviction provides good information.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/silenced-in-court-20101002-161×9.html
“This case is troubling because of what it says about our right to freedom of speech. … Silencing Bolt doesn’t just silence him. It potentially silences the speech of others who might be afraid of being similarly dragged through the legal system. … To his credit, Bolt is a prominent critic of Victoria’s vilification laws. … You can have the right to free speech, or you can have the right to be protected by the government from the offensive speech of others. You can’t have both.”
For the benefit of non-Australians –
– The SMH is a staunchly pro-AGW paper to the left of political centre, and a natural opponent of Andrew Bolt’s views on just about everything. For them to print this is highly commendable.
– The Australian Liberal Party, which gets a mention, is the major right-wing party. In US terms, it is barely right-wing at all.
Chris Watson says:
December 1, 2011 at 5:36 pm
He’s [Bolt] actually one of the worst advocates to have – one might as well have Pauline Hanson advocating one’s position.
It seems that you don’t get the import of, nor the further “context” provided by the Climategate 2 emails as to Climate Science’s “methods”, because you just used one of Saul Alinsky’s favorites – smear the messenger and all of his/her contacts by association, avoid the factual substance of the message. Thereby “proving” that Climate Science is “true”?
We love Bolta downunder! Wish he could extend his show for longer than just a half hour. Enjoy his blog too.
Ouch!
That’s going to leave a mark….
As an Australian, i can tell you Andrew Bolt has a terrible reputation in Australia. The program is generally viewed as a very low brow, muck raking production. And the fact he writes for The Herald Sun doesn’t help. I guess any exposure to the climate fraud and scare tactics are helpful, although Andrew Bolt may be one individual you would like to keep some distance from.
And as for Chris Watson’s assertion regarding the reputation of Andrew Bolt, it’s off the mark, Chris, sorry. He is outspoken. I wish more people were, especially about this issue.
Ric Werme says:
December 1, 2011 at 6:16 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Agreed, the interview with Donna is well worth a look. She is quite comfortable infront of the camera and the interview rolls well.
Also (but obviously very politically motivated with its own agenda), it is worth looking at the following youtube video on the IPCC:
Contrary to Mr Watson’s opinion (a guy who doesn’t even live in Australia), Andrew Bolt has an excellent reputation as an honest journalist and staunch defender of freedom of speech, among ordinary Australians. He is of course hated by chardonnay socialists, global warming alarmists, and green/lefties in general. For UK readers: AB is a bit like James Delingpole.
I just have to add my voice in defence of Andrew Bolt. As Mike Jonas says above, he has been shabbily treated under disgraceful, intrusive and oppressive laws. Note that he was not sued for libel or slander, but simply on the basis of people taking offence, while freely admitting that they had not suffered any actual harm. The case was nothing more than an attempt to suppress opposing views and what is most disgraceful is that it succeeded. The one positive outcome, however, is that the opposition has promised to review this anti-democratic law.
Andrew Bolt is a voice of sanity in a world of madness and we need more like him, not less.
Andrew Bolt leave little room to dispute where he stands, often against the herd. While I don’t agrre with everything he says , He does stimulate thought , analysis and discussion. That IMHO is more good than bad.
Paul says : “The program is generally viewed as a very low brow, muck raking production.“.
Climate Commissioner Professor Will Steffen and Andrew Bolt 13.11.2011
Chris Watson says:
December 1, 2011 at 5:36 pm
I know you guys love Andrew Bolt because he opposes climate alarmism, but that’s a case of the stopped watch being right once in a while. Andrew Bolt has a terrible reputation in Australia…
———————-
The left in the USA accuse Limbaugh of the same kind of stuff. Most of their accusations are either mischaracterizations or completely invented.
richard verney,
Thanks for that, I’d never seen her before. She made this video before the Cap & Trade vote. Still worth watching:
Look at this:
——————————– results:
:> Simple climate model as a policy tool
>
> To: Sir John Houghton
> Ding Yihui
> V Ramaswamy
> Ulrich Cubasch
> Jerry Meehl
> Sarah Raper
> Tom Wigley
> Fortunat Joos
> Geoff Jenkins
> Rik Leemans
>
> cc. Bob Watson
> N Sundararaman
> M Noguer