Andrew, you know that’s a nonsense question.

[jules]

Well at least that is what Bolta reckons Albanese said in response to this question:

Your tax and the $10 billion Clean Energy Fund that you’ve got are meant to cut [Australia’s] emissions by 5% by 2020. By how much will the world’s temperature change as a consequence of Australia’s sacrifice?

It is obviously a nonsense question imo. I mean wtf?

Ok Point one, as a result of these policies the temperature should change by less than it would have otherwise.

So the question is arse about. Temperature change is what we're trying to avoid so ideally the Australian actions are not going to change the worlds temperature at all, they are going to aid it not changing.

Secondly our total emissions are low compared to other places, so the percentage of that (for the sake odf argument) 5 degree change over 100 years that we prevent should be low. less than a degree obviously. Yet to quote a percentage of a degree will just invite ridicule. "What - that little -why bother?" or something along those lines. It ignores the issue of scale -

Thirdly 5% by 2020 is 1% of sweet FA. Yet instead of recognising this point and saying - "well we need effective targets not mickey mouse ones" - the argument is presented the opposite way. That amount isn't gonna do anything so why bother.

This is media framing at work. Someone once said "if you can frame the argument the way you want you've already won." or words to that effect and they appear to be right.

[Matthew Of Canberra]

If australia does indeed end up "going it alone", then I fully expect that we'll see all of this rolled back. If nobody else in the world does anything to reduce their emissions then there really is no point. The policy is clearly based on the assumption that the world is in fact going to do something.

He might as well be asking how many terrorist attacks were foiled due to australia's involvement in iraq. Not many, is the answer, indeed probably none. If we were the only country to go there, it would have been a disaster and we would have pulled out. Clearly that isn't what happened.

Other similarly ridiculous questions might be "by precisely how many square kilometers has the antarctic ozone depletion been reduced by australia's reductions of CFCs?" or "exactly how many more fish are there in the sea globally thanks to australia's controls on fishing in its waters"? They're so difficult to answer that they're all but meaningless - if we were the only ones to act, nothing would have been acheived. But if we _hadn't_ acted, nothing would have been achieved because nobody else would have either. That's the situation that us "going first" seems to be trying to address. We're in a better situation economically than most other countries.

But it's the perfect gotcha question for the "assertion-based community". The question is a soundbite, but the answer is complicated and requires intelligence and a grasp on reality to comprehend.

This can go a couple of different ways. If the world follows us, then we can look back and bolta and his fellow travelers and think "you @#&$ing morons". If the world DOESN'T follow us, then he gets to crow about it ... but if that's the case, I hope all this climate change stuff turns out to be not true.

Either way, he pockets the paycheck now.

[chookmustard]

I have a vague recollection that Andy actually said 'gotcha!' to Albo in this interview when he was trying to pin him down on percentages of temperature.

Anyone else note that?

[chookmustard]

Went back to to the tape (extremely painful watching Andy try and 'interview' someone he disagrees with).

Andy says 'Gotcha! gotcha!'. Soooo I guess that's Gotcha journalism right there.

And it was a nonsense question. Albo countered with the point about foreign aid and lives saved but Andy ignored that of course. My guess is that he has enormorous time constraints on his 30 minute show which is not conducive to reasonable interviewing.

The model is this:
1. Andy talks to people he agrees with and there is much mutual appreciation
2. If he does happen to get a contrary view, talk over them and try and get the 'Gotcha'
. Quick and snappy.

Get a talking point and use it for more blog posts

[Matthew Of Canberra]

"The model is this: ..."

3 - then the whole thing is edited anyway.

That's the biggest difference (IMHO) between The Pull Factor and Insiders, and why serving ALP MPs would be extremely courageous to give it any oxygen. They could deliver perfect knock-down responses to everything that bolt shouts at them, including diagrams and charts, and then never see any of it broadcast.

It was one of the big reasons that howard liked AM radio - it couldn't be edited, because it was live.

[chookmustard]

Are diagrams/ charts even allowed on The Pull( other than Andy's ones anyway)?

I hadn't realized about the editing thing. It has to be there of course (timing etc).

3.1 talking over people gives the impression that 'I'm in charge and you are wrong'. Also makes you look like a massive douchebag to anyone but your closest allies.

It's amusing to read Andys commenters after his show on his blog. A lot of them complain about how the show is not long enough etc but some also whinge about how he talks over people!

Restores my faith (somewhat) in humanity.


From Watching the Deniers watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/?s=Bolt+report

THE BOLT REPORT NAMED ONE OF THE WORST SHOWS OF 2012: AND WE’RE SURPRISED?

The Sydney Morning Herald listing some of the worst shows of 2012, and to no ones surprise The Bolt Report is one of them. Poor Channel 10 – they really should have known better. How could a show built around Bolt be anything but a dull and plodding.

But like a zombie, the Bolt Report refuses to die:

VIEWING figures for The Bolt Report were slightly up in 2012, which suggests either that the partisan commentator is making converts or that those who love to loathe him simply can’t resist screaming at their television sets every Sunday morning. Either way, it was hard to fault his perseverance as the newspaper columnist proved himself the scourge of dead horses everywhere, returning to favoured topics week after week. But Bolt hasn’t managed to find a decent sparring partner, and a fair degree of his initial ”I’ve got my own TV show! Me!” enthusiasm has dissipated. The show has become a forced march.

Climate sceptic Bolt will no doubt convince himself the lack of viewers is a conspiracy among left-wing scientists somehow manipulating the numbers.

[Matthew Of Canberra]

"Are diagrams/ charts even allowed on The Pull( other than Andy's ones anyway)?"

One presumes not, at least if they're complete or accurate.

"I hadn't realized about the editing thing. It has to be there of course (timing etc)"

Channel 10 would be courageous to let bolta go to air edited - he's too big a target, and sails pretty close to the breeze. And I can't ever imagine bolta letting anyone get a free run at affecting the outcome of an argument. Whereas insiders is live - there is no tweaking, no little nips and tucks to make sure the conclusion fits the objective.

[chookmustard]

Well it is called the Bolt Report. Not the Truth Report or Openess Chat or The View from Libland.....wait