from the dumb dungeon...
On Chrismas day, Andrew Bolt published a blog called: How dumb is warmist Friedman? Three weeks later, Gus Leonisky responds using most of Andrew's own words...
How dumb is "denialist" Bolt?
Gus LeoniskySaturday 12 January 2013 (7:45)
Andrew Bolt savages Thomas Friedman because Friedman (a conservative leaning journalist) savages the Republicans as stupid, but for true stupidity readers should check out ... Andrew Bolt:
Fact: anyone who claims most sceptics are “deniers” of “global warming” are plainly fools or liars. None of the sceptics I know doubt at all that the planet has warmed in the past century. Most would agree man’s emissions are likely to have a warming influence. Friedman’s language suggest he simply does not understand the position held by those he so casually damns as stupid. Is there anything more stupid than a man contradicting an argument he doesn’t even trouble himself to understand?
Fact: anyone who claims most sceptics are “deniers” of “global warming” are plainly fools or liars. None of the sceptics I know doubt at all that the planet has warmed in the past century. Most would agree man’s emissions are likely to have a warming influence. Friedman’s language suggest he simply does not understand the position held by those he so casually damns as stupid.
Is there anything more stupid than a man contradicting an argument he doesn’t even trouble himself to understand?
What makes Bolt’s brand of stupidity worse than most is that it is protected by the impregnable smugness of the jock-thinking dumbasses. Bolt would not even suspect he’d made a zillion errors or feel the slightest wish to check whether the comfortable porkies he repeats are total crap. Yes, why take the risk of becoming unpopular by advancing an unfashionable truth?
Well, yes. It’s a merde-och press columnist who claims Hurricane Sandy is just a storm at landfall and has nothing to do with man-made warming. That is a position not one in 10 warmist scientists would refute, because they are too afraid to say so publicly... but privately they crunch the numbers and these add up. Yet Bolt advances his silly point as his ultimate proof of the idiocy of everyone else.
My God, is this man stupid
and then in another zapping crap Bolt says:
I don’t think this policy of wowing the world with our sacrifices [the carbon tax] is working. Do you?
And seeing how our efforts will make no difference to the climate, shouldn’t the government be more concerned to save us money and jobs?
Yep Andrew, now it seems that you "accept" that the increasing hot air is man made, but you are in favour of doing nothing about it, because not a skerrick of increasing disasters can be "directly" attributed to global warming... And according to you, whatever we do won't work... Let me tell you the insurance industry is reeling about the oncoming costs... and the costs are going exponentially while the heat might just be increasing gently. The IPCC calculations were correct 10 years ago, now we need to double our efforts in reductions to minimise the rise of temperature at 2 degrees by 2100...
Like you I could be of the opinion we've got buckley's chances of doing so. Thus we're heading towards a 4 degrees hike minimum by 2100... Not so much because what we CAN DO won't work (including a carbon tax that pays for developing renewable sources of energy) but because we're not prepared to sacrifice enough.
By attacking Friedman, you show you are more than stupid. You are a glorified idiotic defeatist whose gift of the gab has far too much influence on conning ignoramuses, being one yourself...
Meanwhile Friedman, a conservative leaning journalist, says:
Whenever I hear the word “cliff,” I am reminded of something that President Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren, used to say about how we need to respond to climate change because no one can predict when it might take a disruptive, nonlinear turn. “We are driving toward a cliff in a fog,” said Holdren about the climate, and that’s always a good time “to start tapping on the brakes.” Indeed, when you think about how much financial debt we’ve built up in the market and how much carbon debt we’ve built up in the atmosphere, the wisest thing we could do as a country today is to start tapping on the brakes by both emitting less carbon to bend the emissions curve down and racking up less debt to bend our debt-to-G.D.P. curve down. Unfortunately, we are still doing neither.
At least Friedman ( a conservative leaning journalist) understands.
But suddenly the world is facing new threats... The saving-money issue that can downgrade environmental reporting...
Those who care deeply about environmental issues were understandably concerned Friday after learning that The Times was dismantling its special team – or “pod” – of seven reporters and two editors.
Beth Parke, executive director of the Society of Environmental Journalists, told InsideClimate News that The Times’s decision was “worrying.”
Symbolically, this is bad news. And symbolism matters – it shows a commitment and an intensity of interest in a crucially important topic.
In real life, it doesn’t have to be bad news. A pod’s structure, outside the major desks – Foreign, Business, National and Metro – by its nature means that the coverage is not integrated into the regular coverage of those desks, which have their own space in the paper and their own internal clout.
If coverage of the environment is not to suffer, a lot of people – including The Times’s highest ranking editors — are going to have to make sure that it doesn’t.
They say they will. But maintaining that focus will be a particular challenge in a newsroom that’s undergoing intensive change as it becomes ever more digital while simultaneously cutting costs.