Science Illiterate Denier Blogger Andrew Bolt's Lies, Deceptions & Misrepresentations on AGW
O N B-O Z
A catalogue of his scientific illiteracy
Bolt’s Post 7 March 2010
Here, Bolt recounts the results of a recent poll of 609 NSW voters that
shows:
A Sun-Herald/Taverner poll of 609 NSW voters shows 8 per cent of
people do not believe climate change is real and another 29 per cent
think it is real but not caused by humans and 60 per cent of people
believed in man-made climate change.
Last year, only 3 per cent said climate change was not real and 18 per
cent said it was happening but not caused by humans. In 2008 2 per
cent did not believe and 14 per cent said it was real but humans were
not responsible.
But then he does a very curious thing and reiterates what he claims is his
current position on climate change, which is apparently encapsulated by:
what I said on the Science Show as far back as 2007:
Andrew Bolt: I’m certainly pretty sure that there has been global
warming, 0.7 of a degree over the last century, which is the IPCC’s
latest report. I am pretty sure, given the consensus of science, that
man has some role to play in that… (But) how much is man responsible?
He then says that his doubts are related to the questions:
…how bad would warming really be?
and
Is it really worth the pain of trying to stop?
Really? If Bolt really believes that global warming has occurred and that
some component of it is due to humans (which presumably ranges from a
small amount to 100% due to humans), I think it’s reasonable to expect the
following from him; that he:
1.
Provides equal weighting on his blog to arguments for both sides
(after all, he demands this of others);
2.
Wouldn’t refer to the science or scientists as fraudulent, a hoax or
a scam;
3.
Apply scepticism to counter arguments and theories for both sides;
and
4.
Would not seek to deceive people or misrepresent the science.
Let’s have a look at the first. I don’t think any objective and sane
person could possibly believe that Bolt gives any weight whatsoever to the
pro-AGW side of the debate. As evidence, I give you his columns and his
blog.
The second: Sadly, a fail that is very easily graded by searching his blog
with the words: fraud, scam, hoax and con. Now of course, the vast
majority of these will be proffered by Bolt’s commenters but here are some
that are directly attributable to Bolt from the print media or his blog:
“Any day now, global warming will change from the world’s biggest
scare to the world’s biggest joke.” March 2nd 2007
“pagan cult”, “neo-pagan gospel”, “giddiest ideology of all” “great
sham” 12th May, 2009.
“This mad global warming scare could at last be over.” 7th October
2009
“Belief in man-made global warming will soon be laughed out of
existence” 8th Oct 2009
To the 3rd. Well, we know and it is very clear that Bolt applies a form of
scepticism to the pro-AGW side of the science. What of scepticism of and
for those that put forward anti-AGW theory and views? Given that Bolt is
not a scientist and can therefore claim no ability to test scientific
hypotheses himself, an appropriate test of this would be to look at Bolt’s
record of providing corrections and updates detailing when he has
highlighted views or theories that are later, or have already proven to be
false or even doubtful. I have myself many times provided feedback to
Bolt’s posts and columns with links to evidence that have shown that
theories, hypotheses and papers that he has referenced have been debunked,
or he has provided an erroneous summation or slant or he has
misrepresented the author. Without fail, Bolt has refused to acknowledge
or update posts with such information. And, as this blog demonstrates,
Bolt clearly never checks, references or puts forward himself, counter
arguments or positions to anti-AGW material he references.
On the fourth, this blog again shows how Bolt has deceived his readers and
misrepresented climate science and scientists. After only one month of
compiling this blog, I have published 52 posts in which I have shown, with
references and links, that Bolt has made mistakes, has misrepresented the
science, has abused or smeared scientists or opponents in the debate or
has set out to deceive.
Based on this analysis, I can come to only two possible conclusions in
relation to Bolt’s statement about his position on AGW: Either the
statement is (now) false - in which case he would appear to be
highlighting this statement in order to have a cover upon retreat; or, he
is purposely adopting a more extreme anti-AGW stance in his columns and on
his blog to attract the support and readership of the full range of the
anti-AGW market. Warming again March 6, 2010
Posted by BlueGreen in Deception, Doesnt Understand, Misrepresentation.
comments closed
Bolt’s Post 6 March 2010
Finally, Bolt has the courage to put up the graphic he has long touted as
being “evidence” that the globe was cooling and it hadn’t warmed for a
decade, etc, etc.
No similar claims being made here now that deception is obvious even to
his own readers especially seeing that Spencer is forced to acknowledge
that:
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature remained high, at
+0.61 deg. C for February, 2010.
I wonder if Bolt has thought to put this fact together with his evidence
of the NH cold and snowy winter as supporting evidence that the IPCC and
“warmists” are right that global warming and extreme weather events are
completely compatible? I suspect not.
But Bolt does claim it’s evidence of:
The long post-mini-ice-age warming may be resuming after a break of a
decade.
So he’s given up on the cooling idea he’s falling back on another tried
and true deception. Already debunked of course (SkepticalScience).
Followed by another go at Flannery and Qld rain. Already debunked.
El Nino maybe?
Why doesn’t Bolt just go with Spencer:
trends since 11/78: +0.132 +0.132 deg. C per decade
Arctic puts Wilkinson’s alarmism on ice March 6, 2010
Posted by BlueGreen in Deception, Misrepresentation.
comments closed
Bolt’s Post 5 March 2010
Here Bolt again creates deception about the state of Arctic sea ice.
As the first part is merely a rehash of a previous post, which has already
been debunked, no need to re-demonstrate the deception practiced.
There’s an amazing amount of irrelevant hogwash to wade through at Watts
Up With from where Bolt takes his lead here but what Watts wants to say
can be summarised very succinctly where he says:
The Arctic continues to recover.
All those graphics and yet Bolt and Watt just can’t bear to put up the
only one relevant to such a discussion and his assertion: Recovery?
This post is also well covered at Crikey by Tobias Ziegler.
Snowing on warmists’ parade March 6, 2010
Posted by BlueGreen in Deception, Misrepresentation.
comments closed
Bolt’s Post 3 March 2010
Here, Bolt reckons:
I don’t think global warming is working out quite as warmists
predicted:
He then links to a graphic via Watts via Steven Goddard demonstrating
that:
2001-2010 was the Snowiest Decade on Record
Of course, as is usual with Bolt and his cohorts, they don’t actually
tells us just what the “wamists” did actually predict. But if that’s what
they wanted to do, why didn’t they show or quote the predictions that have
been contradicted by this weather? Because, the IPCC predictions are not
contradicted.
Fortunately, this has already been debunked when Bolt previously alluded
to this misrepresentation about the northern hemisphere winter and
snowfall.
the IPCC has said in relation to snowfall (amount and coverage):
In general, snow amount and snow coverage decreases in the NH
(Supplementary Material, Figure S10.1). However, in a few regions
(e.g., Siberia), snow amount is projected to increase. This is
attributed to the increase in precipitation (snowfall) from autumn to
winter (Meleshko et al., 2004; Hosaka et al., 2005).
And Goddard has already been caught out on his misrepresentation of NH
winter snowfall data, from my previous post:
Then, via Watts, via Steve Goddard, Bolt claims:
Any sign of those models being right?
Bolt reproduces Goddard’s plot of data from Rutgers University Global Snow
Lab purportedly attempting to show that “winter” snowfall over the
northern hemisphere has significantly increased.
But look: Tamino has clearly demonstrated that:
Goddard purposely truncated the snowfall data before 1988 back to1967
(ignoring 21 years of data) and used only January & February (claiming
this represents winter - what happened to December?) data, to produce a
classic cherry-picked trend. Use the whole data series, i.e. all months
and all years and:
If we look at monthly snow cover anomaly for all months of the year
covered by the Rutgers data we see a long-term decline of 37,000
km^2/year, which is statistically significant.
But what happens when data from all years for just the winter months are
used:
If we fit a line to all the winter-season data, we get a t-value of
0.211 — nowhere near significant.
Through gritted teeth, climate scientists admit Wong tells porkies March
6, 2010 Posted by BlueGreen in Abuse, Deception, Misrepresentation, Smear.
comments closed
Bolt’s Post 3 March 2010
Here Andrew Bolt accuses Senator Penny Wong of lying and says he is
holding her to account for her “outrageous deceits”. Why and what is her
deceit?
Although Bolt doesn’t provide any link to what Wong said or the origins of
the claim, it’s obvious from the inference and from past Bolt blogs that
he believes Wong has claimed that the drought in the Murray Darling was
caused or exacerbated by global warming when that is not true.
Firstly, let’s look at the first insinuation from Bolt. For Wong to be
lying, there’d have to be no evidence of scientists having said or claimed
the drought was exacerbated by AGW. Following the links back to the
previous Bolt post No, Prime Minister. That drought wasn’t man-made,
either, we eventually find a source for Wong’s claim:
14 Jan 2003
SYDNEY: A new scientific report by WWF-Australia and leading
meteorologists has shown that human-induced global warming was a key
factor in the severity of the 2002 drought. The report compares the
2002 drought with the four other major droughts since 1950 and has
found higher temperatures caused a marked increase in evaporation
rates from soil, watercourses and vegetation.
The report, Global Warming Contributes to Australia’s Worst Drought,
warns that higher temperatures and drier conditions have created
greater bushfire danger than previous droughts. Drought severity also
has increased in the Murray Darling Basin, which produces 40% of
Australia’s agricultural product.
So, setting aside the scientific validity of this particular report from
which the claim originated, it’s clear that Wong is not lying as there is
indeed evidence and a belief by some scientists that the drought was
exacerbated by AGW.
Bolt is wrong to accuse Wong of lying.
Now let’s look at Bolt’s claim that the Wong has been contradicted by Prof
Neville Nicholls:
When you follow the link to the Weekly Times Now article we see that
Nicholls is quoted as saying (my emphasis):
“The current dry period (in the Murray Darling Basin) might still be
just a fluke, or natural variability,” Prof Nicholls said.
“We cannot confidently attribute it to global warming.”
The article then says:
Yet Federal Climate Change and Water Minister Penny Wong has
repeatedly claimed the basin’s drought is due to climate change.
“Research shows that this severe, extended drought is clearly linked
with global warming,” Senator Wong said in November last year.
Professor Nicholls is talking about the current dry period. But in
November, as we have seen above, Wong was speaking in reference to an
article that was referenced to the severity of the 2002 drought.
And, whilst Prof Steven Sherwood, of the University of NSW Climate Change
Research Centre, said that:
”sceptics here are (for once) technically correct, in that there is
no proven link – yet – between Murray Darling drought and climate
change”.
The article Bolt links to also says:
However, lead SEACI researcher Bertrand Timbal said his work was not
at the stage where he could confidently say the drought was due to
climate change in southeast Australia.
Dr Timbal said he was confident the decline in the basin’s autumn
rainfall went beyond what any of the computer climate models could
naturally produce.
Clearly there are scientific differences of opinion on whether there is
proof that the drought(s) in the M-D basin have been exacerbated by global
warming. This is evidenced by Timbal himself who was quoted in this
article from May 2008:
A group of Australian researchers claim to have found further evidence
that lower rainfall and reduced run-off in the south-east of the
country are linked to global warming.
The findings released by the South Eastern Australian Climate
Initiative (SEACI) show increased temperatures have caused rapid
evaporation and reduced inflows to the Murray-Darling Basin.
Again, evidence that, whilst the scientists claims and work on which Wong
relies could be proven wrong, Bolt is merely resorting to abuse and smear
in accusing Wong of lying.
In his update, Bolt then produces a startling and stunning piece of
scientific illiteracy when, via a reader, he asks:
…just what evidence there is that the recent rainfall in the Murray
Darling basin is unusually low, and proof of a heating world:
with this graphic from the Bureau of Meteorology:
Let me ask: Can Bolt find a period in this graphic with such an extended
period of low rainfall over a decade like that evident from 2000 to 2010?
I think the farmers and irrigators in the M-D might also be able to
reassure Bolt and his reader that only a fool would attempt to argue that
this drought is not severe and the resultant rainfall not “unusually low”.
As for it being proof of a heating world, no one argued that it was.
Gore promises the Warmist Inquisition February 28, 2010
Posted by BlueGreen in Deception, Misrepresentation, Smear.
comments closed
Bolt’s Post 1 March, 2010
The first part of Andrew Bolt’s post relating to Gore is, as usual, not
even worth a response.
However, the update relating to tropical storm activity, via The
Australian via The Times, requires refuting. No surprise that it’s this
paper that is the source of yet more misinformation and deception.
The claim is that:
RESEARCH by hurricane scientists may force the UN climate panel to
retract its claims that greenhouse gas emissions have caused an
increase in the number of tropical storms.
Again, let’s see what the IPCC said in relation to tropical storms in its
Summary for Policymakers (my emphasis):
There is observational evidence for an increase in intense tropical
cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated
with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There are also
suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some
other regions where concerns over data quality are greater.
Multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical cyclone
records prior to routine satellite observations in about 1970
complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone
activity. There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical
cyclones. {3.8}
In relation to projections for tropical storm activity, the IPCC said:
Results from embedded high-resolution models and global models,
ranging in grid spacing from 100 km to 9 km, project a likely increase
of peak wind intensities and notably, where analysed, increased
near-storm precipitation in future tropical cyclones. Most recent
published modelling studies investigating tropical storm frequency
simulate a decrease in the overall number of storms, though there is
less confidence in these projections and in the projected decrease of
relatively weak storms in most basins, with an increase in the numbers
of the most intense tropical cyclones.
The writer of The Times article (author’s name is not provided) says:
The IPCC added that the world could expect a big increase in such
storms over the 21st century unless greenhouse gas emissions were
controlled.
This is completely untrue as can be clearly seen from the IPCC excerpt
above.
Then the author refers to the paper, paraphrasing it (apparently) to say:
It suggests the rise in cyclone frequency since 1995 was part of a
natural cycle and that several similar previous increases have been
recorded, each followed by a decline.
It draws on computer modelling to predict that the most likely impact
of global warming will be to reduce the frequency of tropical storms.
The research predicts a fall of up to 34 by 2100.
It does, however, suggest that when tropical storms occur they could
become stronger, with average wind speeds rising by 2100.
A fall of up to 34? 34 what? Where? Per year?
And guess what? It actually turns out all the paper does (assuming that
The Times author’s paraphrasing is accurate and reasonable) is confirm
that the IPCC was right to say exactly what they did say: They couldn’t
discern a trend in the “annual number of tropical cyclones” observed and ,
in the Atlantic, the intensity of tropical storms had increased. They also
stated that the modelling suggests an increase in tropical storm intensity
and some modelling even confirmed a decrease in the frequency of tropical
storms overall.
So, the paper actually corroborates the IPCC, whilst Andrew Bolt and The
Australian have again misrepresented the IPCC and deceived their readers.
Again. Would you buy a used temperature record from these guys? February
28, 2010 Posted by BlueGreen in Deception, Misrepresentation, Smear.
comments closed
Bolt’s Post 28 February, 2010
Here Andrew Bolt claims that:
The university which tried to trick us on temperature records now
tries to trick the parliamentary committee investigating its deceits.
So, the University of East Anglia tried to trick us on a temperature
record, did they?
To trick us, this presumably would have to mean that they altered data and
then published it either as data or as a graphic. Which data was it? Or,
which graphic was it?
If there is no such data or graphic, then Bolt is clearly being, at best,
misleading and deceptive, at worst defamatory.
Here’s what Phil Jones had to say:
Until the inquiry is over, he will stand aside from his directorship
of the CRU. On the question of the science, however, he remains
bristlingly defiant. He may have tripped up over the FoI requests, but
nobody has laid a glove on the science. To prove his point, he spreads
the table with graphs, tracing the outlines with his fingertip. He
shows how the warming trend plotted by the CRU precisely matches the
plots from two independent sources in America. “There, you see!” The
three coloured lines precisely overlay each other, proof positive of
scientific probity.
“I am obviously going to be much more careful about my emails in
future. I will write every email as if it is for publication. But I
stand 100% behind the science. I did not manipulate or fabricate any
data, and I look forward to proving that to the Sir Muir Russell
inquiry [the UEA’s independent review into allegations against the
unit].”
And then, let’s look at the work done by one of Andrew’s own favoured
academics on global warming, Dr Roy Spencer:
Spencer has done some New Work on the Recent Warming of Northern
Hemispheric Land Areas:
Since it is always good to immerse yourself into a dataset to get a
feeling for its strengths and weaknesses, I decided I might as well do
a Jones-style analysis of the Northern Hemisphere land area (where
most of the stations are located). Jones’ version of this dataset,
called “CRUTem3NH”, is available here…
Similar to the Jones methodology, I then averaged all station month
anomalies in 5 deg. grid squares, and then area-weighted those grids
having good data over the Northern Hemisphere. I also recomputed the
Jones NH anomalies for the same base period for a more
apples-to-apples comparison. The results are shown in the following
graph.
What does he find:
I’ll have to admit I was a little astounded at the agreement between
Jones’ and my analyses, especially since I chose a rather ad-hoc
method of data screening that was not optimized in any way. Note that
the linear temperature trends are essentially identical; the
correlation between the monthly anomalies is 0.91.
One data set only, certainly.
And the investigation will go on and provide either vindication or
condemnation of Jones.
Bolt claims he provides facts and evidence for his assertions. Yet none is
provided here. Why? If a data set or a graphic has been “tricked up”, why
doesn’t he say which one? Because he doesn’t have any and none exists. In
other words, Bolt has deceived and misrepresented yet again. Gore’s
Katrina con exposed February 26, 2010 Posted by BlueGreen in Doesnt
Understand, Misrepresentation, Smear. comments closed
Bolt’s Post 26 February, 2010
Andrew Bolt uses the summaries and extracts of Roger Pielke Junior made
from a scientific paper to claim proof that:
Al Gore cynically exploited Hurricane Katrina to sell his warming
scare…
And:
Most shamelessly, Gore even seized on the cyclone which devastated
Burma in 2008 as proof of a warming world.
Let’s see if Bolt is correct in his assertion that he is justified in
accusing Gore of a con and lying.
Firstly, what was it that Gore actually claimed in relation to the Burma
cyclone? Bolt quotes Gore as saying (in a linked post) by Bolt that this
cyclone and others indicated that:
…we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might
be associated with continued global warming.
As I’ve said before, there are times where Gore appear to say more than he
is qualified to say and, given the large uncertainties in the cyclone and
hurricane data, there are certainly limitations in the statistical
confidence that can be discerned from trends – particularly with data from
the 1800s through to the 1950s before the advent of satellite data and
improved accuracy and spatial resolution of measurement of relevant
surface and upper air parameters.
However, if Bolt were the least bit concerned with being fair to Gore,
rather than attempting to misrepresent him, we might expect that he’d have
included this statement by Gore, also in the same article Bolt linked to,
which provides qualification of the first statement:
“It’s also important to note that the emerging consensus among the
climate scientists is that even though any individual storm can’t be
linked singularly to global warming – we’ve always had hurricanes,”
Gore said. “Nevertheless, the trend toward more Category 5 storms –
the larger ones and the trend toward stronger and more destructive
storms appears to be linked to global warming and specifically to the
impact of global warming on higher ocean temperatures in the top
couple of hundred feet of the ocean, which drives convection energy
and moisture into these storms and makes them more powerful.”
So, clearly, Gore did not claim the cyclones were caused by global warming
but was making the point that the intensity (i.e. the strength) of such
cyclones and hurricanes (clearly already devastating) was predicted to
increase as a result of global warming and he even provides a bit of the
science behind why this is the case – perfectly reasonable.
Note that Gore does not appear to have mentioned anything in relation to
the frequency of hurricane or cyclone events in general (i.e. overall
numbers of events). The statement about the category 5 cyclones is merely
a statistical consequence of the fact that, if the intensity of tropical
storms increases, more are likely to fall within the higher severity
categories.
To scientifically expose Gore as a liar (albeit in a very loose sense,
given Gore’s qualification and the fact that the paper wasn’t around when
Gore made the statements!), Bolt and Pielke would actually have to prove
that global warming had no influence on the intensity of the particular
storms mentioned and that would be virtually impossible to do as they
would have to show that global warming had not in any way effected those
parameters critical to cyclogenesis in the areas in which the storms
evolved. And, given that global sea surface temperature increase and
low-level atmospheric warming is an established scientific fact, an
argument couched in probabilistic terms would certainly favour Gore.
So, Gore has actually correctly stated the scientifically based
projections of climate scientists and modellers.
To contradict the scientists and the models upon which Gore and the IPCC
have based their claims, Bolt and Pielke would have to prove that there
has and will be no increase in the intensity of tropical storms arising
out of global warming.
Both Bolt and Pielke provide a link only to the abstract for the paper
which Bolt claims proves Gore a liar and therefore makes it impossible to
determine the context and validity of the statements made relating to the
extracts used.
The paper is:
Tropical cyclones and climate change, Thomas R. Knutson , John L.
McBride , Johnny Chan , Kerry Emanuel , Greg Holland , Chris Landsea ,
Isaac Held , James P. Kossin , A. K. Srivastava & Masato Sugi
In relation to analysis of historical data for storm intensity (not
frequency – which is irrelevant given that Gore talked only about
intensity) Pielke provides only this extract:
The short time period of the data does not allow any definitive
statements regarding separation of anthropogenic changes from natural
decadal variability or the existence of longer-term trends and
possible links to greenhouse warming. Furthermore, intensity changes
may result from a systematic change in storm duration, which is
another route by which the storm environment can affect intensity that
has not been studied extensively.
Whilst the first statement says that the length of the data record does
not allow sufficient confidence in trends in storm intensity associated
with changes due to global warming, it certainly does not conclude that
global warming has no effect or that there has been no increase in
intensity due to AGW. The second statements says that there is the
possibility that the increase in the energy levels of storms may actually
be manifested in longer-lasting storms rather than or in addition to more
severe storms. In other words, strong winds associated with some storms
could blow for longer instead of winds being stronger (only).
The paper (from Pielke’s extract) then says this in relation to
projections for storm intensities and the ability to detect or measure the
change due to global warming:
The intensity changes projected by various modelling studies of the
effects of greenhouse-gas-induced warming (Supplementary Table S2) are
small in the sense that detection of an intensity change of a
magnitude consistent with model projections should be very unlikely at
this time, given data limitations and the large interannual
variability relative to the projected changes. Uncertain relationships
between tropical cyclones and internal climate variability, including
factors related to the SST distribution, such as vertical wind shear,
also reduce our ability to confidently attribute observed intensity
changes to greenhouse warming. The most significant cyclone intensity
increases are found for the Atlantic Ocean basin43, but the relative
contributions to this increase from multidecadal variability44
(whether internal or aerosol forced) versus greenhouse-forced warming
cannot yet be confidently determined.
The first part says that the intensity changes due to global warming
currently are likely to be relatively small and difficult to separate or
distinguish. It does not say that intensities will not increase as a
result of global warming.
The second part repeats what even Bolt must know by now: there have been
significant increases in hurricane intensities in the Atlantic but, again,
the component due to increase in greenhouse gases cannot be confidently
determined and separated from other natural climate variability. Again, no
contradiction of the IPCC science or Gore.
And from the abstract itself we obtain this:
However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution
dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will
cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift
towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100.
Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the
globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced
against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project
substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones,
and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within
100|[nbsp]|km of the storm centre. For all cyclone parameters,
projected changes for individual basins show large variations between
different modelling studies.
So, the paper backs up Gore’s claim that tropcial storm intensities are
projected to increase over the period to 2100.
Conclusions:
* The paper, Pielke and Bolt do not contradict scientists or Gore in
relation to the projected increase in intensity of tropical storms due
to AGW; * The paper does not conclude or allow the conclusion that AGW
does not affect the intensity of tropical storms; * Bolt misrepresents
Gore and is wrong to accuse him of a con or of lying.