Andrew Bolt's Blog,4/11/18; What we do and don't regard as normal makes us racists; Bolt intentionally misinterprets two Scientific Reports;

 Banks apologise for crimes: Sorry not sorry

  We’ve seen the odd apology from bank CEOs and other senior executives over the years for “misconduct” of a bank under their watch. But what has changed after that? 

Nothing, nothing at all. Saying sorry, apologising is part of the ritual. And that only after the institution has been found out, the misdeeds exposed and the senior execs are on the back foot. 

It’s all crocodile tears.

This is the gang that repeatedly rapes, bashes, breaks up Australian families, puts them on the street and regularly brings some to mental breakdown and suicide. Yet there is not an African among them but News Corp and the likes of Andrew Bolt pay no attention to these costs and issues that dominate the Australian landscape.

 In fact, they call for deregulation and self-management while rules are constantly broken. No need for a Royal Commissions here. This is why Bolt is a racist his focus intentionally has his back turned to the crimes of those he regards as "his mob". (ODT)

 

 South Sudanese-Australians report racial abuse intensified after 'African gangs' claims | World news | The Guardian

The study suggests ‘media’s racialised crime reporting’ had a role in the increase in verbal and physical abuse

Young South Sudanese-Australians faced increased racial abuse and felt police profiling “intensified” because of “disproportionate” media coverage after a Melbourne riot two years ago, a study has found.

 

ABC 'DISAPPEARING ISLANDS' CLAIM PROVED FALSE. AGAIN

Why lie? The warmist ABC keeps telling this falsehood: "The Pacific nation of Kiribati... is disappearing underwater." Yet another study confirms the opposite is true: "Data [on] 30 Pacific and Indian Ocean atolls including 709 islands, reveals... that 88.6% of islands were either stable or increased in an area... South Tarawa, Kiribati increased in size."

8m

Bolt's flashing but hiding his Christian Faith the ABC is being far more rational here.

If Bolt was told he had terminal cancer would he deny it if it hadn't spread throughout his body? would he turn to data collected as far back as the 1950s?  Would he argue against his doctors opinion quoting the observations of studies done years before.No, if he did he'd be called a first class idiot.

Yet Bolt is turning to research data collected as far back as the 1950s. Bolt used to quote his once favorite scientist Roy Spencer when fo 20 years according to Bolt the world was cooling he's stopped. The research that showed Kiribati hasn't sunk is like the warning of one melanoma and cancer in transition and not that there is nothing to worry about because it hasn't shown signs of rapid spreading yet. The fact is Bolt's favourite scientist Dr Kench admits his study isn't evidence against global warming at all something that Andrew Bolt conveniently ignores. What Kench actually said "Therefore, island nations must place a high priority on resolving the precise styles and rates of change that will occur over the next century and reconsider the implications for adaption" Kench 

Kench even admits that the rise of oceans will, in fact, be more than just a possibility in the second half of this century something Bolt fails to add. Neither of these studies really discuss what Bolt energetically tries to deny but Kench doesn't hesitate to say that we are in a state of transition and VK Duvat says decision makers are reluctant and that alone makes them and Bolt idiots. It's as if he ignoring the early signs of melanoma isn't a state of the transition of a cancer that will be terminal. Bolt sounds more like a Christian Scientist than a rationalist when he says only do something when it's too late.

Bolt's newest study doesn't say what Bolt does that anything is true or false but that people like Bolt would refuse to do anything that will possibly only show benefits in the future. But rather the opposite is recommended to to put strategies in place limiting the risk of maladaption. The French report actually also admits to examining data going back as doe s Kench and unlike Bolt does not argue it's a case against Climate Change. It too points out that decision makers tend to be fools like Bolt and prefer to do nothing.

 Here we bring empirical material showing that neither Reunion Island decision-makers are keen to drive such radical changes, nor the population is ready to accept potentially constraining policies that will have benefits only in the future. We conclude on the need for further advancing the design of adaptation pathways that build on the implementation of context-specific unavoidable solutions, and thus that seriously consider limiting the risk of maladaptation as a baseline strategy. Virginie K Duvat

•