The Perfect Storm: Alan Jones Gets It Wrong During Andrew Bolt Climate Change Rant

Please give credit where it is due. In my book, Jones and Bolt deserve:

1. Full marks for sincerity, in that they sincerely believe that anthropowhatsit climate change cannot possibly be happening.

2. Full marks for commitment, because they both must have known that if they got caught out on this it would be the start of new career paths for both of them, as perpetual duckers, dodgers, weavers and shamefaced apologisers. With bells on.

3. Full marks for principle: the principle being say always what you think the punters want to hear. And how were they supposed to know that the punters' minds were changing?

4. Full marks for posterior fame - I mean fame in posterity. They will now go down in history along with other great ostriches and denialists, like say the King Canute of legend (note: not of history) and also Ethelred the Unready. That puts them both in royal company. Companions of the Order of the Stuffed Chooks.

5. They need a flag of some sort; a standard to raise in battle. This should feature not something like a lion rampant, but rather a bolting parrot. But a boiled parrot would probably do just as well.

6. Above all they should remember that they either hang together, or they hang separately.

What a nonsense story this is no where in the entire article does Thom properly detail how Jones was in error, probably because he was enjoying too much Schardenfrude here, I'm no fan Jones myself but this is a non story about something that happened two years ago that simply does not matter at all. 

Well Iain, you're wrong all the time, so I guess you've convinced yourself that being wrong is no biggie.

Denialists claim that every one of their latest claims about the science is proof that the whole thing is a vast left wing conspiracy. Scientists and others then look at the new claim and find that it is complete nonsense. 

If there was even a tiny shred of true scepticism amongst the anti-progress crowd then they would have given up on the main talking heads and their many errors. They have not. Even with a proven track record of basic errors and willful misinformation the main voices of 'skepticism' are still supported. Why anyone would still support a person with a regular 100% failure rate in matters of science is anyone's guess. 

Abbott has again gone into bat for his coal mining buddies (and donors) by demanding that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation not invest in proven technology. All his disputes with wind power have been based on misinformation campaigns and their junk science regarding Wind Turbine Syndrome. The misinformation campaigns are being spread by the same groups that reject the science proving it is all political and not based on any verifiable reality. La La Land may be the choice of residence for many in the Coalition but it doesn't count for decisions made about planet earth. 

The person who should not be named, he who says knows everything about climate change, is wrong on this subject all the time, the article clearly states why Jones was wrong and still got it wrong in his apology, he only sees what he wants to see and nothing else, so fellow commentators, please, oh please do not fall for his sobbing storytelling and failing argument and do not reply to him because that is what he wants, notoriety.

Yes. But hardly surprising. Jones and Bolt are just lost causes.  Criticism from them constitutes the best sort of praise.  With the failure of attempts to keep this quiet, I am expecting their next move is to get their little mate Tony Abbott to declare an edict banning any ACMA findings that go against his anti-global warming meme, or his little mates Alan and Andrew.  After all, just in the last day or so, Abbott's tried to unilaterally ban the Clean Energy Finance Corporation from approving any more wind power:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-has-escalated-his-war-on-wind-power-20150711-gia3xi.html

Didnt even give the Minister for the Environment the courtesy of a heads up on this decision, apparently.

Just nuts.

Its been interesting - to say the least - over the last couple of months to watch Abbott's lurch towards dictatorship - the logical extension of 'captains calls'.

Troubling, but not surprising behaviour from 'the mad monk'.

But what is surprising is how cowed the rest of parliament has been in the face of this aberrent, inept behaviour. What a bunch of gutless wonders we have in the halls of power. Turnbull stands out as one of the few with the guts to push back. But he can't do it alone.

This is how it starts, folks.

What next?

Postponement (=cancellation) of the next federal election for 'national security' reasons?

What a joke.

Strangely, Mr Tim not-a-climate-scientist Flannery claimed in 2007 that dams would be empty by 2010 and costal houses would be submerged etc.

for such embarrassingly incorrect claims, no one took him to a tribunal  demanding a a apology from him. Instead, he was promoted to the Climate council.

there are alarmists from both the left and the right. For Mr Jones who is not holding an official position, you don't have to listen to him. But for Mr Flannery who is holding an official position, the matter is more serious.

@DX2013
"Strangely, Mr Tim not-a-climate-scientist Flannery claimed in 2007 that dams would be empty by 2010 and costal houses would be submerged etc"
1. Where's your link?
2. When you do get a link, explain in 'real' terms what he said, not what your 'Alan Jones style mind' wants to be real.

"For Mr Jones who is not holding an official position".
If he doesn't act in an official capacity, then just like Bolt, why are they allowed to have any sway with the public on these highly technical matters?
Why, because they are precious shrills for big business, who's selfish and myopic interests are not served by supporting what's best for the majority or the planet.

RossC:

....a blatant after-the-fact falsification based on being a totally ignorant, opinionated dickhead (Alan Jones).

That was totally uncallled for, and a gratuitous insult to the dickheads of the world.

Dickheads!!! Are you going to take this lying down???

If his past article or comments are  anything to go by we can probably just ignore anything he says on climate change.

OP, DX must have a perspective disorder, with more than one symptom,
1. bringing the TURC into this, discussion.
2. the TURC is a 60 million dollar, farcical show, which has had to be so narrow in scope, because it tries to prevent more than a tip of an iceberg to be exposed, below which is an ocean of corporate corruption.

The Age, 20/4/2015-
"The royal commission targets some of the most successful and strongest unions in the country, while blatantly turning a blind eye to some of the most highly publicised acts of corporate neglect, unethical practices and corporate corruption within the construction industry worth billions of dollars," a motion to the meeting said.

The group has called on the royal commission to investigate an alleged breach of privacy at the Wonthaggi Desalination Plant in 2010, in which the personal details of thousands of workers were stolen; corruption claims at Leighton Holdings; and an alleged "correlation" between anti-union building firms and the incidence of workplace deaths.

The group also called for the inquiry to investigate the exploitation of foreign workers by construction firms through the 457 visa scheme at a time of rising youth unemployment, and abuse by so-called "phoenix companies" that repeatedly evade paying workers' wages and entitlements.

A spokesman for the royal commission said it had not yet received the unions' request but said the inquiry was limited by its terms of reference. "The commission's terms of reference do not extend to general allegations of wrongdoing on the part of employers, whether in relation to corruption or safety issues," the spokesman said.

@OP.
Yes, Blue ties, can't help tell lies, it's in their DNA.

That was a let diwn.

DON_de-Plume

Iain, don't forget to gloss over the facts as to why it was over two years ago.

Good point Don but you should be addressing it to the author who fails to make that clear in his article

And. Who took it to court?\

Likewise I don't know because the article is too light on when it comes such basic facts

that'll be because it was so insignificant.

Yes i would really like to know precisely way this even matters 

Boy, oh boy.....

Yes I agree this non article is something rather sad and pointless.

Clutching at straws I would say, which if history is any indicator could leave your argument naked.

Once again I agree that Thom has overreached here because the essence of this article is simple shardenfreude and nothing of more substance. 

 I can actually hear the radio advertisements already Iain.....

"Sad & pointless"  , "light on facts" , containing "nothing of substance".....it's the Alan Jones show....

IH:

...I just find him to be a repulsive human being....

That is an understandable attitude. But I see him a bit differently. He always seems to me to be a bit like a cornered boxer (pugilist or canine, it makes little difference). He comes out fighting hard, almost as if his life depended on it: always understandable in a footballer. This makes him a good verbal pugilist, but not so much a reasoned debater.

His philosophy of life (something one might call instinctive reaction) is one of those which gives him all the answers, and he can be relied on to have an opinion on anything and everything, which helps explain his success as a professional radio controversialist: speak well of my name, speak ill of my name, but speak my name. On the subject of climatology, he has an opinion. On every political issue, he has an opinion; most definitely and definite. I dare say he would offer an opinion against mainstream nuclear physics and quantum mechanics if there were commercial issues involved that were dear to his heart.

So I do not find it surprising that he has an opinion on the issue of coal mining vs agriculture. On this, his opinion happens to coincide with my own, and on this I am quite happy to let him do the spruiking. But not the debating.

That Jones made errors two years ago is not irrelevant. There are people who have repeated those errors without knowing they are errors and will continue to do so.

A Google search for what Tim Flannery said about capial citiesand and lack of water will reveal some sites which criticise Tim because his predictions have not come true. Other sites explain carefully what he actually said and reveal why the critics are wrong.

The main problem with the claims of the critics is a common one. They do not quote completely what Tim has said. This means that very often they omit when these events might occur and under what conditions.

A very common claim is that Tim is a hypocrite because he lives near the coast and if there is going to be a rise in sea level then he is in imminent danger. This seems to suggest that such critics believe that Tim said the Antarctic will soon melt and the coast will be inundated. In fact Tim said no such thing.

Cherry-picking only part of a statement does not lead to the truth of what was said. It leads more towards misinformation and the spreading of falsehoods to be repeated over and over.

"Dickheads!!! Are you going to take this lying down???"

Iain seems to be.

@DON
would that be from a Him book?

I thought AJ was 'Tone' deaf too, but he kisses his arse, on anything to do with the climate and renewables.

There is only one worse thing than being in the news. And that is NOT being in the news.

I see that you still have not worked out how to make proper block quotes here Don If you look to the last symbol on the third line of icons you will see the double inverted comers highlight your quoted text and click that Icon and suddenly your comment will distinguish between that which you are quoting and your own thoughts on the matter.

Just some friendly advice

Iain,
Petty remarks, when all else fails, on supporting contrary argument, you play the man.
You do realise that your being hypocritical again.

LOL'S@PAW.

BB I was genuinely trying to help a fellow NM commenter who seems to he having formatting problems

Rohan:

As I said over on the Australia Sobotaging Itself on Climate Action thread:

Stand by for a denialist chorus to the effect that Abbott's attack on wind power and his effort to build a future on coal is a GOOD THING in that it will stop us going into another LITTLE ICE AGE in the 2030s.

Should that event come to pass and push come to shove, Abbott himself would still be OK, because he could use his own head for fuel. That part of it not made of pure wood is made of pure coal. 

Sources inside the COALition say the the more realistic of their MPs (both of them) are in favour of a name-change for the Liberals to the VIP - Vested Interests Party.

I agree with Iain (unusually!) - the details of the transgression were most unclear in this article. There was a good explanation on the Guardian website.