Poor old Nick Minchin, and any other skeptical mates from South Australia.
It is, shall we say,
not a good look to be jumping up and down about the "craziness" of any type of global warming action when your own State is
undergoing a record breaking heat wave in
a season not previously recognized as usually being exceptionally hot at all. Minchin has shot himself in the foot in the most spectacular way possible. His criticism yesterday seemed to be against any CPRS legislation going through before Copenhagen, which of itself is not an unreasonable point. But he can't expect to be taken seriously on
any point about global warming now due to his self-outing as one who believes it's all a socialist conspiracy. (That and the fact his State is melting in spring, let alone summer.)
And poor old Andrew Bolt.
He's getting upset that the Liberals like Tony Abbott, who seems to want to be a skeptic but can't quite bring himself up to the level of Minchin paranoia, just aren't studying his column enough to be able to use dubious skeptical arguments against Tony Jones.
I stick to my belief that Bolt has boxed himself in on this issue years ago, finding a contrarian approach successful in terms of drawing ardent followers to his blog, but now to admit he might be wrong would just cause too much loss of face.
It has long been hard to believe that he genuinely thinks that some of the
graphs he posts again and again (most notably, the UAH monthly temperature anomaly graph since 1979) convinces your average punter that there isn't a long term trend to be seen. (Even ignoring 1998, run a line across the peaks over that period.)
His favourite skeptic blog - Watts up With That - does (occasionally) run posts which indicate AGW
modelling is right, or
indicating a skeptical argument might be wrong, but Andrew rarely (never?) mentions those posts. But he will mention posts such as the one about the
degree of skepticism amongst TV weather presenters, as if it matters. Or posts
claiming to cite hundreds of "skeptical" peer reviewed papers, when many of them are not skeptical at all, and a large chunk are from a publication (Energy and Environment) that no one with science credibility takes seriously.
No, if this summer goes as bad as this spring is indicating, Andrew will just start have to consider admitting that he might just be wrong, loss of face or not.
UPDATE: this
appears to confirm my strong suspicion that for the Coalition to follow Bolt's urgings and embrace AGW skepticism would be electoral suicide.
Again, that's not to say that they could not have made out a good case for not passing the CPRS at the moment, but they can't credibly do it when they have a divided house over the grounds upon which they may wish to do it.
Thus, by gee-ing on the AGW skeptics, Andrew Bolt has inadvertently hurt his own cause.
But to be fair - by convincing some that the CPRS will actually work anywhere near fast enough, and by their evident complete lack of interest in taking nuclear power for Australia seriously, there is
a strong argument that Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party is the more dangerous enemy of effective CO2 action.
It's a case of virtually everyone being wrong, for a kaleidoscope of reasons.