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.
Interesting (and not unexpected) responses to my post.
Does anyone feel that including context of excerpts is somehow wrong? Or leads to incorrect interpretations of what was actually being said?
It’s possible to quote _anything_ in short excerpts out of context, and present any view you want with selective editing. Even the Bible – it’s certainly been done before.
Personal opinion (take it for what you will, or won’t), based on browsing news outlets, Google searches and the like – this release of emails is having less impact on the first one. Mostly because (a) there’s nothing really new, (b) the worst sounding stuff was posted 2 years ago, (c) when examined, the worst stuff from 2 years ago didn’t look all that bad in context, but basically (d) it’s now old news, and media doesn’t deal well with that. Aside from, I will note, the lack of response to FOI requests! The response to those was lousy, and various people have been slapped around on that topic. I don’t think they will get away with that in the future, even if (as happened with the CRU data) most of the FOI requests come as annoying form letters and harassment organized by individuals with axes to grind.
—
Re Skiphil , and: “that video is a truly execrable bit of propaganda trash…” – Which parts of actual context do you object to? What parts of skepticism, i.e. checking what you’re told against all the facts, do you object to? Hmmm?
u.k.(us) asked who is Pauline Hanson:
Pauline Hanson is a politician from Queensland in Australia. She started a party called One Nation. She made some “unfortunate” comments in her maiden speech to parliament and attracted a lot of rat bags and fringe groups. Both political parties set out to destroy her (for different reasons). She is no genius and not a very skilled politician but she struck a chord with a section of the Australian community because she was concerned about the lack of a assimilation of new migrants into Australia (I’m not going to agree or disagree with her just to note that she was a product of the circumstances at that time). She was characterised as a racist and a loony. It is now standard practice for the Left to label anyone who disagrees with them as a Pauline Hanson supporter. Interestingly, she was convicted of electoral fraud in 2003 and sent to prison. Many people considered her to be a political prisoner. Eventually the conviction was overturned by a higher court (on the basis that there was “no evidence”) and she is a free person and now has a fair media profile. (Wikipedia has some good details). Regarding Andrew Bolt… the left despise him because he is an increasingly effective advocate against them. He is becoming more popular in Australia and has always been vocal against climate alarmism. I used to hate his guts, then climate change, global warming, climate disruption (whatever it is called this week) became an issue. Now I’ve started to listen to him more.
Actually, I’m not a climate alarmist. I’ve been a climate skeptic a lot longer than Andrew Bolt.
The guy is an ignorant, repulsive shock-jock (I lived in Melbourne 17 years, I know what I’m talking about). You should read the comment section on his blog sometime. It’s not a case of “smear the messenger” – more like “sleep with dogs, wake up with fleas.”
My advice: “if you sup with the devil, use a long spoon.” It would be smart not to let climate skepticism be seen as ‘Andrew Bolt’s issue’ in Australia. Actually, Bolt would like nothing more. He’s just a bandwagon rider; he doesn’t understand the issue. He’s simply sniffed it out as something he can parrot that gets the kind of reaction he likes.
This issue actually raises one of the bring problems for skepticism, which is that – like alarmism – it coming to be ‘owned’ by a faction who have a whole lot of unsavoury ideas they want to peddle along with it – all that Ayn Rand, Limbaugh, Le Pen cr#p.
I don’t support climate alarmism. I saw through ‘Global Warming’ years before Andrew Bolt. But if you want me to vote for a platform of “climate skepticism and the other things Andrew Bolt believes,” I – like most Australians I know – just can’t do it – because among the other things he believes are some dangerously horrible ones.
As far as Andrew Bolt goes, if he had such a bad reputation in Australia, he obviously wouldn’t have many listeners. Kinda like the left saying Rush Limbaugh is hated by nearly everyone in the US. Obviously neither that statement nor does Chris’s square with the facts and likewise CAGW doesn’t square with the facts.
These alarmists want to believe in their hyper- warming fantasy. Why? Money, politics, reputation, religious philosophy, and, yes, stubborn stupidity – or is that stupid stubborness. Notice in Mike Jonas comment where he has the Bolt interview with Climate Commissioner Professor Will Steffen, who nonchalantly states that the seas level rise is accelerating, not telling us that data games are played to create that perception. But Nils-Axel Morner, the ocean expert, says it’s all bs:
“In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: ‘We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.’ ” (http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7438683/rising-credulity.thtml)
KR, I hope you are aware that there was nothing of substance in the video clip you posted. A lot of references to conspiracy theory, several hand-picked straw-man emails being hand-waved away, scientists’ bias being blithely dismissed as normal [that’s not good!], and a few irrelevancies, but it also contained this:
“A well-known phenomenon called the divergence problem“,
as if calling it “well-known” was enough to dismiss it as being of no significance. That was it. No explanation of the divergence problem was offered.
Well, I would agree that the divergence problem is well-known, because it has been surgically dissected by Steve McIntyre and has been shown to be very significant indeed. He has demonstrated with full scientific rigour that some very unscientific things were done by Michael Mann and acquiesced to by others. There have been many posts here and in Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit and various other blogs etc that have covered the divergence problem in some detail.
If, like the narrator in the video clip, you consider yourself to be a sceptic, you might care to explain where Steve McIntyre has got it wrong? Perhaps starting with the spaghetti graphs which show various segments of proxy data being deleted, while no explanation of why there was a divergence was given, nor of why the reason for the divergence was such that the bits of proxy data left in were still reliable.
The case was decided against Bolt because he had 1 fact wrong.He referred to one of the plaintiff’s parents as a German with a photo showing a white skinned person. It was in fact the plaintiff’s grandfather.
Then the judge contorted his language to describe the plaintiff’s skin colour. The reason being that he himself did not want to offend these thin skinned people. In return, the prosecution had no shame in court before the judge of accusing Bolt of being a NAZI and just a few steps from inciting a holocaust and other pleasant bon mots.
As far as CAGW goes, Bolt uses solid references. He does not accept the WWF press releases recited by our politicians as gospel. He asks why is it so? The trolls then use the Saulinsky procedure or Fenton physics to dispute with him and readers. ( Fenton physics is if it feels good ,or the data is fitted to the outcome, or it looks and sounds good in a 3 minute tv grab, then it is settled consensual science.
I’ve been a regular UK reader of WUWT since well before it became a “must-read” for people interested in climate and related topics. This is not a criticism of the moderators, but I’ve never known a topic which has been taken over by political polemicists before. I hope that this isn’t a sign of things to come.
To Chris Watson, who started this “hare running” , and those who followed, most readers here don’t need to be told what to think – and, without Anthony Watts’s permission, I’d like to disinvite you from doing so again.
Chris Watson says:
December 1, 2011 at 9:39 pm
The guy is an ignorant, repulsive shock-jock (I lived in Melbourne 17 years, I know what I’m talking about).
=================================================================
I’ve lived in Melbourne all my life and, on the basis of what I’d read/been told about him, used to say the exact same thing.
However, after I consulted the primary sources (his actual writings) I now consider him an excellent journalist. I still disagree with him on a number of issues – euthanasia, casual drug use, Israel/Palestine to name a few – but I can no longer pretend he’s the “ignorant, repulsive shock-jock” I was led to believe he was.
Andrew Bolt is a bit to the tabloid end of the spectrum, granted, but he is listened to and his show invariably has serious public figures from both sides of debates on which means they all take notice of him. That just means he is a key figure in the debate which is what it is all about folks. So all you non Aussies should not take much notice of the Bolt haters, just listen to his interviews ( be it Will Steffen or whoever) and take away what you will. We are after all one of the worlds oldest continuous democracies who took 10 years just sorting out our federal constitution and not a shot was fired.
Bolt is good but he’s no Timmie Blair.
In modern parlance, as a rule (there may be rare exceptions),
“deplorable and insensitive comments about migrants and ethnic minorities” = truth.
Footnote: I am a migrant and a Pre-Native (Siberian) American.
Chris Watson @ur momisugly 9:39
all that Ayn Rand, Limbaugh, Le Pen cr#p
Sigh, and there we have it. “I disagree with what you say therefore you must think the same as le Pen.”
Achieves naught bar demonstrating that you have no idea what any of these people say or think, because there is very little that they would agree on.
Have you ever read Bolts column? Listened to Limbaugh? Read Rand? I can’t imagine any set of people more likely to disagree with the authoritarian socialism of people like le Pen or the Australian progressives.
I find this whenever I try to talk to Australian progressives, it invariable descends to their making absurdly wide ad homs, while I try to talk issues.
Still, nothing to do with McIntyre, is it.
What we do find on Australian television, the Bolt Report is the only place you can go where a view counter to the IPCC ‘consensus’ can be found. All other programs, on both this and other channels, stick to the narrative. If you don’t watch Bolt then you wouldn’t know there is a debate doing on. Now that isn’t healthy.
Why dont´ you look at the data, missing FOIA emails are still there!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=2803.txt&search=+————————————————————
And this is the big one, i´converted to ascii, on on the ripper its´active, and dont’ match to
FOIA search window.
NGO
>
> –=====================_??? ==_
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=”alcamo.doc”
> Content-type: application/msword; name=”alcamo.doc”; x-mac-type=”42494E41″; x-mac-creator=”4D535744″
> Content-transfer-encoding: base64
BOLT is the No.1 most read, watched and listened-to journalist in Australia. See the link below
http://www.thepowerindex.com.au/megaphones/andrew-bolt
And not surprisingly, the top 3 spots are all filled by vocal skeptics with Alan Jones and Ray Hadley coming in at 2 & 3.
Perhaps the Alarmist folk can explain why this is the case ?
Thank you Steve and thank you Andrew.
I could watch this video for hours, hoping there is much more to come.
*thumbs up*
I’m hiring some spys to look into this guy at “The Bolt”. He’s being funded by Big Oil and he should be fired for climate crimes against humanity. /BIGsarc!
Chris Watson,
Your green puppet head avatar at your website and your purported “zero enmity” music seem at odds with your barely concealed resentment of Andrew Bolt. ‘There is no healing, only forgiveness’. What is that about? Musician, heal theyself!
If you are given to introspection, ponder upon the term “cognitive dissonance”. Try and figure this out; the opposite of hate is not love, it’s indifference.
Typed whilst listening to AB on MTR 1377, thanks to the Internet. http://www.mtr1377.com.au/
Not being an Australian I am not in the position to know anything about Andrew Bolt nor do I care! If the AGW subject had been given fair and open debate on all the airways, we probably wouldn’t be in the mess we are today! Stifling scientific debate and declaring the science settled was the flag that got me involved in this; science is not, and never has been, settled.
Great video!
repealtheact.org.uk
FOIA unreadable data is not crypted, its´only MIME format, and is easily converted back
to TXT mode.
i´took a sample, where Mike Hulme writes that only reason is to curb emissions,
politics as usual.
http://www.motobit.com/util/base64-decoder-encoder.asp
My pc systems are under firing, i cant´ send visual description
I don’t agree with Bolt about everything, but I do believe that he is sincere, honest and miles ahead of the competition MSM that still uncritically parrot whatever they are told in Greenpeace press releases. As his is the most widely read blog in Australia, it is true to say that he is loathed by his opponents. They make the same mistake as the AGW crowd do about people like Anthony and Steve McIntyre – they assume that because he disagrees with them he must be morally deficient.
It was awesome to see Steve McIntyre being interviewed. Bolt’s opponents have no idea who McIntyre even is, let alone what a coup it was to get him on a modest little TV show in Australia. Once again, they just don’t get it. No wonder almost every newspaper and several TV and radio networks in Australia are losing money. They are totally out of touch.
Ilkka Mononen says:
December 1, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Ikka, I’m no computer expert or cryptologist but can you clarify how or if you have broken the encryption on these files? I’m not quite clear from your posting as to what the key actually is. I also can’t yet see any other comment here that’s taken up what you say but if you’ve actually done it, the mods or Anthony should certainly pick up on it (? mods/Anthony?). As I write though, it’s still the early hours in the US, mid morning here in the UK. And if you have managed it, you’re a star!
There were something visually wrong at email, if there is somethig “waste” symbols,
so they means something secret, thus wery important.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography
Game is not over:
>***********************************
> NAME *
>***********************************
This is also a message. i´suppose.
Must try >’***** CR> nameofsomebody * CR >*******’ .
My point is, wuold you spread this so widely as you can.
Ilkka.
Compelled to stand up for Andrew Bolt. He’s a conservative liberal but in Australia that is considered right wing. He struggles to give voice to a modicum of conservative opinion in an environment dominated by the radical liberal elite. To my mind a man of great integrity, tested and proved in season and out against pretty consistent demonising by his enemies.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/the-truth-will-out-on-labors-carbon-scam/story-e6frezz0-1226197176697
The truth will out on Labor’s carbon scam
>>On cue comes the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which this week issued warnings to businesses that they will face whopping fines of up to $1.1m if they blame the carbon tax for price rises.
It says it has been “directed by the Australian government to undertake a compliance and enforcement role in relation to claims made about the impact of a carbon price.”
Businesses are not even allowed to throw special carbon tax sales promotions before the tax arrives on July 1.
“Beat the Carbon Tax – Buy Now” or “Buy now before the carbon tax bites” are sales pitches that are verboten. Or at least, as the ACCC puts it, “you should be very cautious about making these types of claims”.
There will be 23 carbon cops roaming the streets doing snap audits of businesses that “choose to link your price increases to a carbon price”.
Instead, the ACCC suggests you tell customers you’ve raised prices because “the overall cost of running (your) business has increased”.
It’s all very Orwellian: the tax whose name cannot be spoken. We are already paying for the climate-change hysteria that has gripped Australia for a decade. Replacing even a portion of our cheap, coal-fired power with renewable energy is hellishly expensive. It also requires costly adaptation of existing infrastructure.<<