Andrew Bolt backs climate change

Login to access MacroBusiness Members special reports. If you are not a member, sign up here.

Please fill in the following form to login


or

Please fill in the following form to subscribe
David Llewellyn-Smith
Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)

Comments

  1. I admit: man’s emissions probably play some role.

    He’s hardly on board, but at least he’s climbed onto the fence. How anyone on a public platform can publicly deny scientific consensus and not lose their job and reputation just shows you how far into post-truth we are.

    Also, slow the hell down with that keyboard there, Tex!

    It si all abotu competing with One Nation and Clive Palmer and damnn the lifeboats.

    • Nothing but damage control. They now accept the public are bloody livid over this so they are just massaging their message. Position is unchanged.

      Maybe this “Enough. How can Prime Minister Scott Morrison possibly agree that global warming is a menace — giving us bad things like a “longer, hotter, dryer, summer season” — yet still promise to do less than Labor to save us?” is about putting pressure on Morrison to get rid of him, then they play the “yes, were are responding” but do nothing. Not sure, but Bolt…….

  2. reusachtigeMEMBER

    Sucker! Needs to talk more about how the floods are unusual and also must be because of climate change just to get on the fools wagon. Of course these people neglect history but who cares, it’s the hype man!

  3. What fresh hell is this? WTAF.

    What next? The risible Parrot and Ray Hadley also working out that science is, well, based on evidence.

    Anyway, what has been Bolt’s Damascene moment?

    I’m a bit cynical (I blame Peachystan’s Benevolent Dictator) so surely this is something that’s come from James Murdoch via Rupert? Surely?

    PS: people actually pay for the Hun?

    • I sent him a memo about nuclear power the other day and he was suddenly very enthusiastic. Good on him!!

    • There was always going to be a point where the largest cohort of vested interests swung from being anti to pro climate action / energy transition. The momentum in the ESG movement in the last six months or so has crossed that point. Its no moral awakening, just pushing the line he gets paid to as per his entire dishonest ‘career’.

      • Quite agree, Leopards and Blot do not change their spots.
        A modern day Saul of Tarsus pharasee to the end.

  4. Jonathan Tennenbaum recently penned a very good summary on nuclear power in 6 series.

    https://www.asiatimes.com/2020/02/article/tomorrows-nuclear-reactors-small-but-beautiful/?_=1181921

    There are some who are still stuck in the 20th century, but the nuclear world has been moving rapidly.

    The unit cost of building a house on an empty lot is much more expensive than building the same houses over an entire block. Prefabricated houses will make the unit cost still cheaper. This is just common sense.

    The unit cost of Generation II nuclear reactors during the mass rollout by the French in the 1980s was between 1000 EUR/kW and 2000 EUR/kW (in 2010 EUR), or 90% cheaper than the recent CSIRO estimate. SMRs are essentially the reactor version of prefabricated houses, so they are expected to make the unit cost still cheaper.

    The French solution is already technically viable today in Europe, Asia and North America. Straya does not need that many reactors, so it will be difficult for Straya to fully benefit from the economy of scale if it goes ahead with the French solution alone. For Straya, waiting for somebody else to mass produce SMRs and buying a small number of them will be a sensible strategy.

    • I’ve always thought a nuclear baseload with a capacity to upscale, plus a good solar set up is ideal in Aus. Our uptake of solar isn’t *that* high, yet is pretty cheap

    • Yeah, so basically based on US inflation rates from 1980 to 2020 that would be only 2000Eur to 4000Eur a Kw to build. Lets ignore that the french had a nuclear industry to start with. Lets also ignore the fact we cant build jack in this country for anywhere near the estimated up front costs. Lets also ignore the fact that we have a fairly recent history of shoddy workmanship on infrastructure. Lets also ignore the fact that the decommissioning of anything in this country almost invariably falls on the government to do no matter what the up front promises are, just look at lots of mine sites…..

      So if we ignore all that a 1GW nuclear power station should only costs us $3B to $6B, and then there is the running costs, monitoring and oversight costs ( and yes we would be forced to comply just like every other Nuclear capable country ). Fuel processing costs.

      If only there was relevant example we could use to gauge it on….

      Maybe Hinckly Point C would be a good start. Only an up front estimate of 20B Pounds for a 3Gw reactor, and that was after giving financial guarentees and a special exclusion zone so they could bring in migrant workers and the french to build it.
      Recent estimates have it blowing out by another 20%. would put a 1GW reactor at around only $12B. Seems like a good deal compared to the current estimates of $3B for the equivalent Solar + Storage.

      And the pro nuclear poster child France is scaling back its nuclear power due to a range of issues, including irregularities in the steel pressure vessels and a reduced reactor lifetime to 40 years instead of the hoped 50.

      Lots of talk about all these modern designs that solve all of the inherent problems of traditional reactors, but thats it, they are designs, a few prototypes being tested at the moment but NONE are in production as yet. most of these new designs have been coming for decades.

  5. NoodlesRomanovMEMBER

    ‘We sceptics can’t go on like this. These bushfires demand we all stop pretending and face the facts.’

    I’m all for the man to say ‘I genuinely believed it at the time but I was ignorant of facts’, but ‘stop pretending and face the facts’ is an admission of wilfully misleading the public.

    • Imagine say if the CMO did that for coronavirus for 1 week. Said the virus was a made up conspiracy. But 15 years, yeah no problem.

  6. It shouldn’t be a surprise. Bolt has realised he can’t milk it anymore. He’s an opportunist who will flip and flop based upon what works for him. This was best summed up by the Idiot on the much missed Idiot Tax blog.

    https://tinyurl.com/uyvrafs
    (I had to tiny url it as @ndrew is still gets sent to the void.)

  7. Ah Bolt. Yet another of the so called Sky News Conservatives In Name Only commentariat that’s only goal is to conserve the GDP and their own wealth.

    Rolled over on ghey marriage, climate change and now just waiting for him to push child drag queen story time as “Traditional Consevative Values”.

  8. well I have to say, I did not think he had it in him. have to give credit where credit is due.. well done cvnt, it takes lot guts to come out and admit being wrong. hope this was not due to loss of audience.

    • He could have apologised to all he people he has castigated on this.
      He is just following orders.

  9. If LNP roll over (and they absolutely should) on CC where does that leave Labor?

    Does Labor actually stand for anything worthwhile for Australia and Australians?

  10. Not really a good job imo. In the non-journalism real world you can’t just be wrong about something for 15 years at huge cost to everyone, change your mind and then keep your job. Doesn’t work like that.

      • The public let’s journalism get away with it.
        The department of health copped it when they said coronavirus wasn’t contagious before symptoms and back flipped the next day.
        Journalism is wrong for 15 years about an existential threat, and nothing happens.

        • That’s how it works.

          After all, if all the journalists who were wrong about the scale of “catastrophic” nuclear accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima had “copped it”, none would be left by now.

          • Are you in fact saying Chernobyl and Fuku were not catastrophes?

            Can we get clear on something – are you involved in the nuclear industry in any way shape or form?

          • Somehow, the spam filter doesn’t seem to like the links. Let’s see if my post comes back later. Meanwhile, excerpts from the WHO links:

            “The psycho-social impact of disasters and emergencies has been well documented. It has been reported to be the Chernobyl accident’s main public health impact that affected the largest number of people. A similar effect is now reported in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster”

            “It was necessary to dispel the Chernobyl myths and make it clear that for most Chernobyl-affected people, Chernobyl radiation is not the driving factor in the broad spectrum of health and socio-economic problems of the affected territories.”

            “the nuclear accident was a “low-dose event” for the millions of people living in areas deemed to be contaminated. Precautionary measures are still called for in some small areas of high radioactive contamination. However, the vast majority of people living in “contaminated” areas are in fact highly unlikely to experience negative health effects from radiation exposure and can safely raise families where they are today.”

          • “It was necessary to dispel the Chernobyl myths and make it clear that for most Chernobyl-affected people, Chernobyl radiation is not the driving factor in the broad spectrum of health and socio-economic problems of the affected territories.”

            FFS! Technically correct, but in slightly changed circumstances Chernobyl make a fair chunk of Europe un-inhabitable for about 5000 years.

  11. Journalism like to talk about “cost” of climate change mitigation. But what is the cost of journalism? Because there is zero benefit.

  12. A month ago I posted this from Professor Christy the satellite climate expert who said the same thing and I was considered a flat earther.
    Here it is again.
    https://youtu.be/I8hdE3eZ6vs
    The issue is not whether climate is warming…. it probably is… since the late eighteenth century;
    does CO2 have an effect…. yes, but it is small…
    Is the IPCC scaremongering… Yes.. hence all the fraudulent charts and models that the gullible believe
    What difference does “climate action” in the west have given the above and the actions of India and China….. not much
    is Co2 increasing… yes
    Does it have any other effect… Yes.. the planet is greening.
    If you are interested look through the propaganda to the science.

    • Mining BoganMEMBER

      I’m mostly wondering how the workplace deniers are going to gently ease their way into kinda believing now that the Bolta has told them to. The sneering “oh, you believe in that crap” is going to have to be removed and replaced with something less sneering yet with more derision.

      Why, only last week I was told that its only scientists in the made up field of climate change that believe in it. That’s hard to backpedal from.