Andrew Bolt on Climate change Ignorance shows exaggerated confidence in his abilities, whereas experts are unduly tentative about their performance because they know what they are talking about. Dunning-Kruger effect.

 The  Dunning-Kruger effect.  published in 1999.Appliesdirectly to the Andrew Bolt's of this world when it comes to the denial of Climate change in particular those employed by Fox News and News Corp.

"Ignorance is associated with exaggerated confidence in one’s abilities, whereas experts are unduly tentative about their performance."

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wvVPdyYeaQU

Confidence and credibility

 Unfortunately projected confidence as the most important determinant in judged credibility.
Does this mean that the poorest-performing — and hence most over-confident — expert is believed more than the top performer whose displayed confidence may be a little more tentative?
 In contested arenas, such as climate change, the Dunning-Kruger effect and its flow-on consequences can distort public perceptions of the true scientific state of affairs, yes.
To illustrate, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions. This consensus is expressed in more than 95% of the scientific literature and it is shared by a similar fraction — 97-98% – of publishing experts in the area.  Research has found that the “relative climate expertise and scientific prominence” of the few dissenting researchers “are substantially below that of the convinced researchers”. In other words Bolt and his denier sources are not only a minority but are below par when it comes to research. Those 'for' are counted in the 1000's whereas those against wouldn't fill  a small room. What News Corp and Bolt fail to recognize is the false balance they present is actually bias.
 recognise (false) balance as (actual) bias?

‘I’m not an expert, but…’

How should actual experts  deal with the problems that arise from Dunning-Kruger, the media’s failure to recognise Bolt's lack of “balance” as bias, and the fact that the public uses projected confidence  of commentators as a cue for credibility?
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dsjEN5lN_JQ
1 The pervasive scientific consensus on climate change IPCC report based on 100's of the top climate scientists  In the same way as there is a consensus that smoking causes cancerThe public has a right to know that there is a scientific consensus on climate change.
2That the public wants scientists to work closely with managers and others to integrate scientific results into management decisions. This opinion appears to be equally shared by all stakeholders, from scientists to managers and interest groups. That decisions aren't made on Bolt's notion that "I'm not an expert but think of the economic harm therefore....."

Advocacy or understanding?

Given the consensus “the only unequivocal tool for minimising climate change uncertainty is to decrease our greenhouse gas emissions”. In the same way that given the consensus on smoking and cancer quitting will minimise the risk of cancer.It is not advocacy.
  Both statements are true. Both identify a link between a scientific consensus and a personal or political action.Neither  advocates any specific response or non response.— but both require an informed decision based on the scientific consensus.
 Spurious accusations of advocacy which Bolt uses is merely a ploy to marginalise the voices of experts.removing their opinion from public debate. The consequence is that scientific evidence is lost to the public and is lost to the democratic process.Sober policy decisions on climate change cannot be made when politicians claim that they are not scientists while also erroneously claiming that there is no scientific consensus which immediately shows their advocacy and conservative bias.