Andrew Bolt Blog Posts MY REPLY TO PAUL BARRY, WRIGGLING AND TWISTING Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
October 17, 2019 10:18am
My column today showed how ABC Media Watch host Paul Barry omitted key quotes to claim I had misrepresented the true views of a global warming scientist who conceded there was no link between global warming and drought.
Barry's ludicrous and deceptive response? That I omitted quotes, too. Hi Andrew,
I’ve just seen your column in today’s Telegraph, ‘ABC makes some omissions on emissions’, in which you accuse Media Watch of committing ‘crimes against journalism’ by omitting a key quote from Professor Andy Pitman. You tell readers: See, Pitman in his Sydney meeting went on to say more damning stuff that I’d quoted but which Barry on Monday inexplicably didn’t: “If you look at the Bureau of Meteorology data over the whole of the last 100 years there’s no trend in data. There is no drying trend … That’s an expression on how variable Australian rainfall climate is … So the fundamental problem we have is that we don’t understand what causes droughts.”
That’s what Barry omitted.
But you have done exactly what you accuse us of doing, by omitting two of his key points.
Pitman’s full quote says: If you look at the Bureau of Meteorology data over the whole of the last one hundred years there’s no trend in data. There is no drying trend. There’s been a trend in the last twenty years, but there’s been no trend in the last hundred years.There are in some regions but not in other regions. And that’s an expression on how variable Australian rainfall climate is. So the fundamental problem we have is that we don’t understand what causes droughts.”
[at 1.11.05]
So, you have left out two crucial facts. The first is that there IS a drying trend over the last twenty years. The second is that there is a long-term drying trend in some regions and not in others.
I’m sure this must be a mistake on your part. Perhaps by the sub-editors. And one that you will want to correct.
Because to omit those two sentences deliberately would be both hypocritical and dishonest.
Yours
Paul Barry
Here is my response to Paul Barry nonsense: Paul
Your email is pathetic. Deceptive. Ill-informed. And evasive.
So do you then admit you yourself omitted something very material? Then apologise and correct.
Your implied defence - that I omitted something, too - is pathetic.
First, pathetic even on your own terms - that two (alleged) wrongs make you right.
Second, I have several times quoted the entire passage. Look it up. I also quoted the full passage on my rebuttal on Sky News on Tuesday.
Third, there was nothing but consideration of a 390-word limit behind my not publishing the entirety of Pitman's comments in my column as well.
Fourth, the omission is obviously immaterial. That “trend” over 20 years signifies nothing about global warming. There was a historically anomalous wet period around the 1970s in particular, with rainfall since falling back again, but to levels still above what we saw in the first half of the century. That’s all.
Rainfall in Australia http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/chang...tQ=graph=rranom&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=0
Same with eastern Australia: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/chang...Q=graph=rranom&area=eaus&season=0112&ave_yr=0
As Pitman himself goes on to say directly after mentioning this variability: “And that’s an expression on how variable Australian rainfall climate is.”
Variability. Not global warming, as you now seem to imply. And to repeat: Pitman is NOT drawing a link between that rainfall trend and global warming. He actually said so, very explicitly, but you seem unwilling to hear it.
And lastly, you do not address the point I made. That you omitted something very material indeed from Pitman’s talk that makes a nonsense of your attack on me. This was his admission that over the century there “is no drying trend” and that “we don’t understand what causes drought”.
What is your explanation for this? Dishonesty? Ignorance? Malice? Your manic global warming belief, that blinds you to any science that contradicts your superstitions?
I should also add that you falsely implied on your show that I had seen Pitman’s laughable “clarification”. You were wrong. You should have checked with me. Had I seen it, I would obviously have noted it - and then shown it up for what it was.
Andrew Bolt
UPDATE
As you see, I have no embarrassment at all in publishing Barry's attempted gotcha of me.
In contrast, Paul Barry does not dare publish my response:
Paul Barry
Having told climate scientists not to let the media get away with printing crap ... I felt I had to follow my advice. Here's my email to Andrew Bolt and the editors of @dailytelegraph and @theheraldsun.
Paul Barry
✔@TheRealPBarry
Bolt's reply ... 'Your email is pathetic. Deceptive. Ill-informed. And evasive.' Prepare for assault from Sky and Terry McCrann. #mediawatch#climateextremes
Weak. No confidence at all in his argument.
And totally unprofessional. He makes a bogus attack on me yet does not publish my rebuttal.
And remember: Barry is paid by the ABC to operate like this. And we fund the ABC to be impartial, not a soapbox for climate hysterics.
Something is very broken here.
