Bolt vs the Bureau

Following my piece in yesterday’s Fin, Andrew Bolt wrote in to deny that he had ever accused the Bureau of fraud or dishonesty. More precisely, he concedes that he did once, presumably a reference to this piece, a direct accusation of dishonest against the Bureau and the CSIRO. But wait, there’s more.

The first Google blog hit under Bolt + Bureau is this letter from Joanne Nova and others, calling for an audit of the Bureau, and beginning with the claim that “The BOM claim their adjustments are “neutral” yet Ken Stewart showed that the trend in the raw figures for our whole continent has been adjusted up by 40%.” The letter is full of accusations of dishonesty and political bias. Presumably Bolt is going to claim that he is just reporting here, and again when he repeated this claim by Nova here

Maybe the same for this suggestion that “warmists” at the Bureau have rigged the rainfall figures for the MDB, run under the title Why did the Bureau remove the rain? (note that, unlike a journalist, Bolt gets to pick the headlines for his blog items).

And perhaps this, where he relays a claim by Warwick Hughes, that the “warming-evangelist” Bureau is “smudging” rainfall data to tilt the case in favor of global warming.

13 thoughts on “Bolt vs the Bureau

  1. Bolt is barking mad up the wrong tree if he thinks the BOM are doctoring figures for some idealogical crusade against the Australian people, and farmers in particular. They spend their working lives trying to get stuff right, as opposed to the Bolt practice of getting things Rightwing.

  2. @Tim Lambert

    You are confusing anomaly with temperature.

    Your chart has 33 readings of +ve (sometimes large) anomaly, and only 3 with -ve minor anomaly.

    There is no base year identifed, so obviously whoever peddles this stuff does not know what they are talking about.

    – GHG theory predicts more +ve anomaly than -ve anomaly.

    – Evidence demonstates more +ve anomaly than -ve anomaly.

    Varying base-year can impact on this picture.

    Your graph shows ongoing global warming.

    Anyway such short time scales are not indicative as GHG signals can be buried in southern oscillation effects.

    Chris, I’ve posted this, but it doesn’t seem to be a response to Tim – can you clarify? – JQ

  3. Bolt only really believes one thing, that controversy is good for your career. It’s more profitable to be the leader of a mad minority, than a follower in the sane majority.

  4. Bolt makes his boss happy – and he doesnt need morals or scruples for that – nuff said.

  5. Come on every one knows bolt is a raving lunatic, why take anything he says seriously.

  6. Personal attack on another commenter deleted – please read the comment policy

  7. Isn’t it a coincidence how Murdoch’s media is consistently further right wing then the populous?

    Coincidently Murdoch is an anti competitive monopolist and a right wing activitst.

  8. It’s alarming that Bolt is finding his way onto Australian TV in a big way. I’ve seen him on ABC, Ten and on one of the morning TV shows, I think on one of the other commercial networks – he gets to have his misleading say, often without critique or criticism or right of reply (eg on 7PM project criticising Tim Flannery for saying – paraphrased – the drought was never going to end). I’d like to think Flannery will get an opportunity to respond but why is Bolt getting a career boost rather than criticism for his dangerously irresponsible opinionating?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s