In a recent speech Julia Gillard asked:
I ask who I'd rather have on my side:
Alan Jones, Piers Akerman and Andrew Bolt.
Or the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science, the Bureau of Meteorology, NASA, the US National Atmospheric Administration, and every reputable climate scientist in the world.
Julie Bishop, deputy leader of the Opposition, comes back with the name of Joanne Simpson:
And comments from legendary atmospheric scientist the late Dr Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA, who authored more than 190 studies and described as one of the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years who said: "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organisation nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly . . . As a scientist I remain skeptical . . . The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system."
Well unlike some of the other names Bishop lists, Simpson certainly was a reputable climate scientist, but I wonder what was hidden with that ellipsis? Here's a fuller quote from Simpson:
What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical.
And she goes on to talk about how NASA's Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission can provide more complete information by testing the predictions of climate models. Simpson is skeptical, but she's using the word with its original meaning, not the way that "global warming skeptics" use it. And she's in Gillard's camp on the need for action.
Now Bishop didn't set out to deliberately misrepresent Simpson. Bishop was fooled by Inhofe's list of scientists that allegedly dispute the consensus. Trouble is, Inhofe includes scientists that don't dispute the consensus and won't remove them, even when they ask.
In any event, Bishop seems to have forgotten what her party's policy is -- which is to reduce Australia's emissions by the same amount as Labor. But instead of using a carbon tax or emissions trading, they're going to use direct action. This is a question of economics not climate science and she should perhaps come with a reputable economist who thinks her party's scheme will be less costly than Labor's.
- Log in to post comments
>"In any event, Bishop seems to have forgotten what her party's policy is -- which is to reduce Australia's emissions by the same amount as Labor."
Well, I've never seen such a blatant case of a party having an official 'policy' that all its voters know is not worth the paper it's written on and will be promptly flushed down the toilet the moment they win power.
The leader of the opposition, the deputy leader, and most of its vocal MPs are actively casting doubt about the science, not the policy. That doesn't exactly speak to me of conviction politics... rather of dog whistling...
I note in Bishop's piece a part is lifted from this site:
http://420trader.net/?p=488
She writes: "And comments from legendary atmospheric scientist the late Dr Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA, who authored more than 190 studies and described as one of the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years..."
The website attributes the quote to:
"Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."
Quoting Itoh (even the ellipses are in the same place) she begins:
"What does Julia Gillard say of UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist ..."
The website attributes the quote to:
"UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist."
Then there is Bishop:
"US Government atmospheric scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration ..."
And the website:
"U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA."
I don't have access to turnitin at the moment. Can someone please see if she has lifted anything else?
She also references an [article](http://www.theamericanscholar.org/what-the-earth-knows/) by Nobel prize winning physicist Robert B. Laughlin.
Laughlin appears to be channelling James Lovelock - the title of the article is "What Earth Knows"!
He concedes
But not to worry
Gee thats a relief.
He finishes with the following punch line.
I am sure that 160 million Bangladeshis will take that on board.
Sorry. Couldn't put fingers on Inhofe's list so I used the link to just a few of the quotes.
Here is the article this quote is taken from. The argument seems to be that 1) geological time is very, very, very, very, very, very, very long, 2) humans are selfish and will burn up all the fossil fuels we can get our hands on, 3) any resulting AGW will occur during a mere blip in geological time, and natural processes will take care of it (over geological timescales), therefore 4) she'll be right, mate. Here's a longer quote:
...
So, sure, the CO2 will be taken up by the deep oceans over coming millennia, but perhaps it might be more useful for policy makers to contextualise global warming in terms of timescales relevant to human civilisation - and the effects that CO2 will have on temperatures, ice sheets and regional climate in the meantime, no?
MikeH,
Snap!
And you said it better than I did ;-)
Oh the earth will cope just fine.
We will be in trouble. (And a few other species).
If your main witness is already dead, that is a sure sign of moral bankruptcy.
BTW, couldn't she find someone at NOAA with a PhD?
Tim says â¦.. âBishop seems to have forgotten what her party's policy is -- which is to reduce Australia's emissions by the same amount as Labor.â
Well, yes and no. ALP and Liberal are both committed to an unconditional 2020 GHG reduction target of 5% below 2000 levels. However, at Copenhagen, Rudd committed with other major emitters to adopt a course of action which would limit average global temperature increase by 2100 to no more than 2C above pre-industrial levels. Gillard has not resiled from that undertaking, whereas Abbott has never committed to it.
Hansen (2011) makes it clear that by limiting CO2 concentration to 450ppm we risk average global temperatures exceeding 6C by 2100 because of slow feedbacks. This would enable decadal doubling of the loss of polar ice causing sea level rise of as much as 5m by 2100. Faced with such catastrophic prospects, limiting our emissions to 5% is purely tokenistic and untenable, particularly when compared with most European nations which have adopted a 2020 reduction target of 25%.
With either a Carbon Tax or a more efficient ETS government is able to increase its 2020 reduction target to a more realistic 20% - 25%. It will certainly come under international and domestic pressure to do so over the next 3-4 years as the effects of climate change become increasingly evident.
The problem with the Oppositionâs Direct Action Plan is that it is doubtful that it could effect a 5% emissions reduction by 2020 and is quite unable to achieve a higher target.
Another salient difference between the two approaches is that Direct Action would be funded by imposition of a broad new tax, needing to raise $20b - $30b to be paid to businesses as an inducement for reducing their GHG emissions. No compensation would be paid to households for any inflationary effects.
On the other hand, a carbon Tax or ETS would be imposed on 1,000 Australian companies deemed to be major emitters with the proceeds being used to compensate those affected by inflation and to stimulate R&D into green technology and its use.
A further complication is attitudinal. Gillard has repeatedly stated that she unequivocally accepts the science of climate change. Several Liberalâs also hold that view, though Bishop is not among them. Most Liberal MPâs endorse the position of Opposition Leader Abbott who has had many conflicting views on climate change science but overall is best described as an AGW denier.
Warren Truss and the National Party are far less equivocal, accepting the pseudo science of Plimer and Monckton that CO2 has nothing to do with climate change. In fact they deny that it is happening and, if it is, this is normal climate variability.
It seems highly unlikely that rabble-rousing Abbott or wheat stalk chewing Truss will occupy the Treasury benches anytime soon. On the other hand we have the Gillard government committed to action, though precisely what action is as yet unclear and comments by Minister Combet declaring his commitment to protect the coal industry do not inspire.
Government proposals are at least workable. Those of the Opposition are not. So really, the crude efforts of Julia Bishop to cast doubt on the science are no more than an irrelevancy.
Bishop's source, either directly or indirectly, is definitely Morano. She makes the exact same mistake as he does, in attributing this "âPlease remain calm: The Earth will heal itself" to Laughlin, when in actual fact, it comes from [this article](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/please-remain-calm-the-ear…), a review of Laughlin's essay by Neil Reynolds - an economics columnist. The quote is from Reynolds (or whoever wrote the headline for Reynolds) - not Laughlin.
The rest of the material attributed to Laughlin has been cherry picked and disordered, removing all traces of context from the original article. Classic Morano in other words. Bishop would be wise to avoid copying and pasting his rubbish in the future.
Well spotted Dan R.
You're right: JB's (borrowed) quote is misattributed, cherry picked, disordered and stripped of context.
Oops.
> Bishop would be wise to avoid copying and pasting his rubbish in the future.
I suspect she currently thinks she was wise to copy and paste in the first place.
Cut from whole (unattributed) cloth from Morano's article of 8th of December headed: "SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore" (Google it, I'm not going to link to it.
Morano's orginal July 2010 channelling of Reynolds article does not include the quote: "Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyoneâs permission or explaining itself." (which is an actual quote from Laughlin), because Reynolds only paraphrased this bit.
The original misquotes appears together with the genuine quote for the first time (as far as I can tell) on Climate Depot. It's spawned many offspring (2000 google hits on the key bits of phrasing), so its impossible to say with certainty that Bishop (or her flack) got it from Climate Depot. But that's where I'd be laying my hard-earned.
echo...echo...echo...
What Julie Bishop did not do was clearly state that she accepts the science coming out of the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science, the Bureau of Meteorology, NASA, the US National Atmospheric Administration. If she accepts the validity of climate science she shouldn't need to find quotes from climate scientists that appear to disagree and write an article defending the right to doubt. Defending free speech is one thing but she is not using it to support the findings of scientists and organisation doing the job of finding out about climate but to feed public doubt about their findings.
Like Tony Abbott addressing the rally of climate change deniers in Canberra and failing to point out that the issue is real and serious, this clearly puts Julie Bishop in with the climate change deniers.
As at today the sea-ice areas of the Arctic and Antarctic together are down on the 1979-2009 average by about 650,000 square miles, or an area equivalent to one sixth of the area of the United States.
Don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind.
I e-mailed Julie Bishop to ask her whether she should consider withdrawing her statement from the record on the grounds that she had misrepresented Dr Joanne Simpson's position.
Here is her reply:
And most European nations have little or no population growth but mentioning population growth in Australia is politically incorrect.
Duckster
I emailed her as well (I am in her electorate) and she gave me the exact same reply. And it doesn't make sense. Her article is all about casting doubt on the science... Nothing to do with advocating a different policy.
Duckster @ 16
Is that an admission from Bishop?
...more like a Freudian error!
@Duckster #16 - As Ms Bishop says in her email:
By the way, there is no requirement to quote entire passages from articles or speeches when the point is made from the selected quote.
Indeed, selective quoting and misquoting are tried and true methods of deceit.
> Inhofe includes scientists that don't dispute the consensus and won't remove them, even when they ask.
Sounds a lot like Poptech and his list of 500 papers that aren't 100% behind the AGW theory that Poptech thinks the IPCC is reporting.
> Inhofe includes scientists that don't dispute the consensus and won't remove them, even when they ask.
Sounds a lot like Poptech and his list of 500 papers that aren't 100% behind the AGW theory that Poptech thinks the IPCC is reporting.
Bishop doctoring Simpson:
>As a scientist I remain skeptical . . . The main basis of the claim that manâs release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.â
Bishops defense of her doctoring:
>*By the way, there is no requirement to quote entire passages from articles or speeches when the point is made from the selected quote*
When what point is made from the selected quote?
She got two different quotes made paragraphs apart about different things, and she put them together is reverse order! I don't think an ellipsis covers that.
> I don't think an ellipsis covers that.
It certainly does not. That makes it a doctored misrepresentation, in my book.
Julie Bishop says:
I'm told there is no requirement to quote entire passages when the point is made from the selected quote.
All these people with their geological-time-span take-the-long-view attitudes. Skip their paychecks or hike their tax rates and see how long their perspectives are.
@16
"Dear Duckster, Thank you for your email.
I have read the further quote you have provided from the late Dr Joanne Simpson where she attacks us climate change deniers. I do accept your interpretation of my article. I was making, By the way, no point.
Best wishes Julie Bishop"
Julie would approve I think.
"By the way, there is no requirement to quote entire passages from articles or speeches when the point is made from the selected quote."
So you're not familiar with the concept of quotation out of context, Ms Bishop?
In fact, why bother with the words anyway? All the letters are still a-z and if you take all Ms Bishop's statements and select each letter and space adroitly, you can have Ms Bishop quoted as saying "I want satan's love".
I KNEW IT! SHE'S A SATANIST!!!
Just select the right letters. She definitely used them. And it's not necessary to use ALL of what she said if you want to quote her. The satanist just said so.
"Now Bishop didn't set out to deliberately misrepresent Simpson."
Bishop still needs to retract her false statement and apologize to Simpson's family, Gillard and Australians. Also, the person in Bishop's office who fed that misinformation to her should be disciplined.
The true meaning of Simpson's statement is very clear as to what she was skeptical about, and it was not the validity of the theory of AGW.
Sadly, her reticence to do so indicates that she believes whatever Morano et al. will feed her to reinforce her belief that AGW is a scam.
Has anyone informed Gillard's office about this? If not, please do, as this information could provide some nice material for a rebuttal by Gillard during question period.
I suppose that it might be of interest to somebody to know that Dr Simpson has featured in my own efforts over at /Unleashed/, and in exactly the same way.
When I confronted the deniosaur who misquoted her with precisely Simpson's full comments that "we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC", they changed tack and started referring to what they claimed to be an 'interview' in /Time Magazine/ with Dr Simpson in which she supposedly criticised the work of Hansen.
I asked for more information, such as an issue number. Deniosaur says they don't have the copy on hand, they'll 'order a replacement' and supply the 'details'.
Yeah.
That was years ago. Since then, I've asked for the 'details' about the 'interview' at least fifteen times, I think, offhand, maybe thirty. Nothing forthcoming, of course - not a page number, issue number, author's name, title, let alone an actual /quotation/.
Just one of those casual little lies that they didn't expect to get called on, I suppose.
What's 'funny' is that about a year into this saga, the deniosaur took to claiming that /I/ had already actually 'quoted' from the 'interview' myself. Naturally, I asked for the 'details' of /that/ development, such as the 'date' and 'time' of the 'post' in question. Nothing forthcoming, of course, although that doesn't prevent the ABC rerunning the deniosaur's totally false accusation.
He shut up for a bit after I invited him to repeat it once again for the benefit of my lawyers, but he's still there and still lying through his teeth, of course. He's claimed that Antarctica is another planet 'for climate purposes' and that CO2 is non-toxic and who knows how much other stuff.
*
Oh - for those who remember him, I'm not talking about Greig, BTW, although /he/ is also very busy over at /Unleashed/. Lately he's trying to tell the audience that Fukushima "is a testament to the robust engineering practices in the nuclear industry".
At least it makes a change from his attempts to defend the Iron Sun Theory without exactly endorsing it, or claiming in February that "[t]here were no devastating bushfires this season", as the ashes were still smouldering at Perth...
Hasn't Bishop got form for questionable practice?
Anyway, as a lawyer, she should know perfectly well that accurately quoting someone who you are relying on to make a point is as important as correct attribution.
Tim,
I do not follow Australian politics, but it is pretty clear that Bishop and her staff do some very selective research on climate change. Somehow [she concluded](http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/the-bishops-gambit/what-the-governm…) that my blog was the [best source](http://simondonner.blogspot.com/2011/03/julie-bishop-and-australian-opp…) on Chinese climate policy.
I'm amused that she didn't foresee readers copying and pasting then searching for the origin of her obviously copy-pasted bullshit.