Tonight we ask, having just watched the ABC's Difference of Opinion, what is the point of this show and other similar offerings such as SBS's long running Insight. It seems to us that both of these shows regularly degenerate into isnot/is too style bickering. Boring.
It must be a dull business being Gerard Henderson. Always being so serious, never getting to have a laugh. Surely GH must be the only media personality identity to have actually made a complaint about the Chasers taking the piss out of him and then been surprised that his complaint was not taken seriously.
Last Monday, Today Tonight aired a story which basically pushed the line that cab drivers from non-English speaking backgrounds were dishonest. It seems that Australia is once again at the mercy of the yellow (cab) peril.
Now, there are no experts in climate change here at Vv, which begs the question:
Q: If we wanted an opinion about climate change and it’s effect on the Great Barrier Reef, who should we ask?
A:Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the Director of the Centre for Marine studies at the University of Queensland, Author of several peer reviewed papers on coral reefs.
B: Andrew Bolt, opinion columnist. Not an expert on coral reefs. Not an expert on climatology. Long time conservative hack with no scientific qualifications and a vested interest in climate change denial. A man who has traveled too far down the path of denial to turn back now without losing all credibility.
Still, who wouldn’t be convinced by the power of Bolt’s logic when he pronounces, without so much as cursory attempt at explanation, that coral damaged by cold water could not possibly be the victim of climate change (seeing as he is the expert and all).
This is school ground nah, nah, nah, stuff. Vv can picture Bolt with his thumbs in his ears wiggling his figures – which might explain how Bolt has failed to hear what climatologists have been telling us for years, that climate change involving a rise in the planets average temperature will lead to more extreme weather patterns both hot and cold.
In one of the linked posts Bolt attempts to discredit Professor Hoegh-Guldberg by pointing out that the professor predicted that the world’s tropical reefs could disappear by 2100. (For those of us still waiting, Bolt has gazed into his crystal ball and the reefs will be just fine and Iraqwill be at peace by Christmas 2008)
So having got both opinions who should we trust? The science of predicting the future is by its nature imperfect and inexact; however for the moment, Vv is more convinced by the body of evidence presented by the Professor and the great majority of his peers, rather than Bolt’s smarmy assertions and army of straw men.