Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

Uncategorized

Mar 28, 2011

The Bishop's Gambit: cutting and pasting denialist errors

A group of bloggers has again sprung Julie Bishop using material from other sources - including some howling errors.

Share

Two and a half years after being embroiled in a plagiarism scandal, Julie Bishop has again been found using material from other sources.

In a post last week on her Fairfax blog Bishop criticised the Prime Minister over her suggestion that credible scientists didn’t question climate change by reeling off several names and quotes in a climate denialist document presented to the US Senate. However, a number of commenters at Tim Lambert’s Deltoid blog recognised the material and began digging.

In her blog, Ms Bishop referred to…

…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.”

Tim Lambert investigated the quote and found an immediate problem. He dug out the original piece from Simpson to see what the ellipses in the Bishop quote hid. In a section of the original article not quoted by Bishop, Simpson says:

“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 one of Lambert’s commenters spotted the resemblance to quotes posted on a blog by a climate denialist financial trader, where not merely was the exact quote used by Bishop posted, complete with misleading ellipses, but the exact same description of Simpson.

In fact, if you Google the text, it appears routinely on a list of quotes that has appeared on a number of climate denialist blogs, even on blogs by people who (like Ron Boswell) think we’re in danger of global cooling. Bishop also used the quotes and descriptions of scientists Kiminori Itoh and Stanley Goldenberg that appear on the list.

But as the Deltoid bloggers dug deeper, they found that Bishop’s cutting and pasting had led her into further trouble. She also quotes scientist Robert B. Laughlin as saying “Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — climate is beyond our power to control.” But as commenters pointed out, Laughlin never said any such thing. The quote Bishop used is actually from a review of Laughlin’s article, by Canadian Neil Reynolds. Indeed, as you can tell from phrasing, it’s actually the title of the review.

Why? The quote used by Ms Bishop appears to have been taken, again complete with ellipses, from elsewhere – a climate denialist piece written in December that makes the same mistake of attributing the review quote to Laughlin himself. Bishop’s quote is exactly the same as that of the December piece.

In fact, if Bishop had bothered to check Laughlin’s original article, she’d have read that he says:

“Carbon dioxide from the human burning of fossil fuel is building up in the atmosphere at a frightening pace, enough to double the present concentration in a century. This buildup has the potential to raise average temperatures on the earth several degrees centigrade, enough to modify the weather and accelerate melting of the polar ice sheets.”

Ms Bishop told Crikey this morning “the theme of my blog was freedom of expression and freedom of thought in this country. The quotations were from a report to the US Senate, which I referred to in the blog.”

She rejects Crikey’s “interpretation” of the Simpson statement. “I am aware that the late Dr Simpson stated that she remained sceptical,” she said.  “As to the other [Laughlin] quote, the report is on the US Senate website so I am happy to add a link to the source US Senate. The blog was not about climate change science, and I pointed out that the Coalition has a policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reach the same targets as Labor by 2020.  It was a response to the Prime Minister’s attempts to crush any views that differ from her own.”

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

40 comments

Leave a comment

40 thoughts on “The Bishop’s Gambit: cutting and pasting denialist errors

  1. Jimmy

    It’s funny that the coalition continues to state it’s position that climate change is real but also continues to suggest that the science isn’t settled, seems to be trying to have a bit each way to make sure they keep their denier base on side while trying to fool the moderate swinging voter.

  2. Holden Back

    And she’s a moderate.

  3. drmick

    In every way Holden, in every way

  4. Frank Campbell

    Bishop gets what she deserves- much the same as usual.

    But the real story is the bizarre obsession with “climate”. National politics has degenerated into farce, with neither side able to escape the consequences of climate millenarianism. A one-item agenda. Bernard Keane’s daily wordage reflects this.

    Nothing Australia does will have the slightest effect on global climate. You all know this. Even Lostradamus Keane. With 1% of global CO2 emissions (which are bound to rise spectacularly in the next few decades -another uncontroversial fact) Australia is just one fart among millions.

    Yet we’re earbashed about “proycing caaahbun” and Abbott’s Algae as though “climate” was the only thing people cared about. The NSW (and last Federal) election made it clear that climate obsession is NOT what people want to hear about. They know that this moralistic crusade is expensive and that it distracts politicians from real issues, not least the daily rape of the real environment.

    The Green Left is headed for oblivion unless we recapture it from the cult. So if there any other Green Lefties out there who don’t want to follow the Very Revd. Bob Brown into the wilderness, get off your arses now.

  5. klewso

    Ahhhh, “Barbie Scissorhands” you’ve done it again?

    Fair go, Jimmy, they’ve got a few constituencies to play to, if they want to win government, we’ll just have to wait til after we elect them to find out what the mandate is we gave them – just like “Non-core Pormises” all over again. You can’t really expect them, with their record to be “honest before an election”, can you?
    Ever see a game of “Twister” – that explains it all.

  6. Jimmy

    Frank Campbell – “Nothing Australia does will have the slightest effect on global climate” If we applied this argument to income tax evety individual in Australia could argue that the amount of tax they pay is a miniscule amount of govt revenue and therefore it would make no difference if they paid it. However this would be ignoring their social obligation’s and that it is everyone doing a small amount that makes the whole. Plus it is hard to tell someone else to do their bit when you refuse to do your own.

    I would alos point out that as citizens of the world Australians are close to the worst, it’s just that there aren’t as many of us.

    “The NSW (and last Federal) election made it clear that climate obsession is NOT what people want to hear about.” How is this true? The NSW polls have been predicting the carnage from the weekend long before a carbon tax was even mentioned (in fact the result might actually end up being better than some polls predicted not so long ago) and the last federal had both parties promising action on climate change (one that works and one that doesn’t) and there was no clear winner so how does that prove your assetion?

  7. Frank Campbell

    Jimmy: income tax vs Co2 emissions. False analogy. If we don’t pay tax, we all suffer. If Australia does nothing about CO2, nothing changes, whether we’re the “worst in the world’ per capita or not.

    Secondly, the “caahbun tax” is just the latest version of what we’ve been hammered with for several years. The polls show a steady decline in climate millenarian belief since 2006. All elections are polluted these days by CO2. People are sick of it. We all know what bothered voters in NSW: transport, health, sleaze….these things trumped “climate”- which is why the Greens couldn’t capitalise on the ALP collapse.

  8. SageBarnOwl

    Jimmy, couldn’t have said it better myself. Just because Australia produces such a small amount of carbon pollution in the world doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to cut it – we are one of the worst per capita for carbon emissions and it’s about time people stopped taking modern conveniences for granted.

  9. GocomSys

    @Jimmy
    Good try!
    Let’s face it mediocre Australians deserve a mediocre media and mediocre politicians!
    The danger is that it can get worse in “Mediocrity Land”. What did the mediocre NSW voters do? They removed a mediocre government and replaced it with one that is going to be worse! OOps! Replacing the mediocre federal government with one led by someone like Abbott @ Co. Unimaginable! If the concentrated effort to undermine the national psyche persists we’ll nostalgically look back to the times of mediocrity. Difficult to see us getting out of this quagmire since any attempt to buck the trend is quickly nipped in the butt by the usual suspects!
    Very sad really, because in so many fields individual Australians are doing exceptional work!

  10. Jimmy

    Gocomsys – “I would also point out that as citizens of the world Australians are close to the worst, it’s just that there aren’t as many of us.” I was talking in terms of carbon pollution only, on rereading I see it sounded much worse, sorry I will put it down to being Monday.

  11. heavylambs

    It’s a sad day when a people’s representative snubs domestic scientific expertise and sources her “content” from the work of an industry shill employed at taxpayers expense by a US senator in the back pocket of big carbon. Bishop is a disgrace.

  12. Son of foro

    “The NSW polls have been predicting the carnage from the weekend long before a carbon tax was even mentioned …”

    Well, quite, the result was exactly as has been predicted for the carbon tax announcement. It’s such an obvious fact to point out every time the Coalition tries to force a link between the two. One can only wonder why the likes of the Australian and 2GB don’t bring it to their attention.

    One also wonders how hopeless Labor are that they didn’t say this straight away and keep on saying it.

  13. Jimmy

    Heavy Lamsb – “It’s a sad day when a people’s representative snubs domestic scientific expertise and sources her “content” from the work of an industry shill” Not only that but apparently plagerism and misrepresenting other peoples comments is an expression of free speech!!

    I’m sure uni students everywhere wil be rejoicing on that one. “No sir I didn’t cheat and those quotes aren’t made up, it’s free speech”

  14. Mark from Melbourne

    Ms Bishop probably argued that it was written by one of her support staff. Oh wait, that’s probably just as bad…..

  15. Frank Campbell

    “and it’s about time people stopped taking modern conveniences for granted.”

    Wow Sage Owl, I rest my backpack.

  16. Jim Reiher

    A myth needs to be put to bed… “Australia only puts out a tiny % of the world’s carbon, that we wont achieve anything by trying to cut our emmissions.”

    Not so. While it is true that we put out only about 1% directly, we are actually responsible for some of the statistics of other nations – the ones we export our coal to in particular.

    But even more important: how can we discuss this on the international stage, how can we encourage others not to pollute, if we refuse to tackle our own contribution? There is a moral and ethical obligation to do what we ask others to do.

    Even if we only reduce the world’s total minimally.

    Another myth: Australia should not have to lead the way – let others do stuff first! Reality: we are lagging behind. We missed that “lead the world” option years ago.

  17. Hugh (Charlie) McColl

    Frank, you write: “So if there any other Green Lefties out there who don’t want to follow the Very Revd. Bob Brown into the wilderness, get off your arses now.” Do you mean these people should get in a line behind you or are you pushing them out onto some ‘front-line’ somewhere?

  18. Fran Barlow

    Given that Julia Gillard and Julie Bishop share a similar first name, and the latter’s is even better structurally for the puerile “lie” pun — how long will it be before someone cites this and does tit for tat?

  19. Fran Barlow

    Frank Campbell — your concern trolling is utterly transparent. Dealing with human-forced climate change, far from undercutting other issues (environmental or other), is seminal to them.

    You can’t protect local biomes if the global biome is in ruins. You can’t protect the interest of working humanity if the commons are degraded. Cutting fossil HC usage underpins the integroty of local ecosystem services because other non GHG pollutants also fall. Cutting resource depletion means less volatility in local non-tradeable prices.

    Epic fail …

  20. Frank Campbell

    Jim R: You manage to encapsulate three of Banal Julia’s false assumptions in one post. Admirable brevity.

    (i) “While it is true that we put out only about 1% (CO2) directly, we are actually responsible for some of the statistics of other nations – the ones we export our coal to in particular.”

    As I often point out- FF exports made Rudd’s triumphal march into Dopenhagen absurd before he and his retinue of 114 sweating bearers (tax-payer funded) even arrived. We know that the “developing” world will greatly increase FF use and therefore emissions for decades. Australia dodged the GFC missile mostly because of raw material exports. Ruddgard couldn’t even impose a decent superprofits tax on the miners, yet you blithely assume that somehow Australia will either reduce FF exports or maybe tax them out of contention….

    (ii) The “moral and ethical” argument only carries weight here. The rest of the world doesn’t give stuff what Australia says or does on this. If they ever give it a thought, foreigners would simply marvel at the moral indulgence that leads a government to unilaterally penalise itself for no “climate” benefit at all. This is the moralism I refer to in my post above- the class inequity is brazen. The immediate losers will be the working class, those on fixed incomes and the poor generally. “Compensating” them (or the “polluters”) Gillard’s final desperate ploy- subverts the purpose of the tax.

    (iii) “Another myth: Australia should not have to lead the way – let others do stuff first! Reality: we are lagging behind. We missed that “lead the world” option years ago.”

    Another provincial gesture. A species of infantile nationalism, again imbued with phony moralism. As a general rule, small countries should never try to bear R and D costs. When they do, they usually find their innovation bribed overseas. But to race other countries to a pointless tax- that’s bordering on insane.

  21. drmick

    The NBN legislation has just passed the lower house, the flood levy went through last week and you can bet that the more the house haunter and the rabbit try to confuse the issues, the more the issues become clear to everyone else. The carbon tax is going to be passed as well.

    Suck up the crappy stuff while you can, Julia “Clean Air Systems” is in training no longer, and is ready to go as many rounds with Mr rabbit and his punching bag as it takes.

  22. Frank Campbell

    F.Barlow: “Frank Campbell — your concern trolling is utterly transparent. Dealing with human-forced climate change, far from undercutting other issues (environmental or other), is seminal to them.”

    This is the key idiocy of the climate cult thuggernaut. The catastrophist killer App: Armageddon trumps everything.

    It also excuses everything. Everything is subordinated to pursuit of the chimera. The real environment is neglected- how could it be otherwise? All Green energy is poured into it, dragging much of the ALP along. Gillard said today that disaffected voters will reward “progress”- the caahbun tax. “Labour values” (supposedly in crisis) are reduced to this banality…

    The Greens are squandering their political capital for a mess of pottage. The result will be political oblivion for the Green/ALP govt. I’ve been saying this for 18 months while the Crikey tossariat and its clones have predicted the apotheosis of the Greens…we’ve just heard the same nonsense about the NSW election. The Greens couldn’t even capitalise on the ALP shambles.

    When the nasty Right takes power, Abbott’s “climate” policies will be exposed as a figleaf. Where will the climate cult hide after a decade of rule by the Right? Shall we postpone Armageddon? The cattle are back in the Alpine National Park, but that’s trivial, isn’t it Fran? But that’s just the start.

  23. Frank Campbell

    C McColl: “Frank, you write: “So if there any other Green Lefties out there who don’t want to follow the Very Revd. Bob Brown into the wilderness, get off your arses now.” Do you mean these people should get in a line behind you or are you pushing them out onto some ‘front-line’ somewhere?”

    The front line has been defined by the Green Left: climate millenarianism and nothing else. Gillard said as much today: “progress” equals forcing the “caahbun tax” on the country.

    Kill the Kult. That’s all.

    Because of climate hysteria, real politics doesn’t exist now.

  24. charlto.honk

    The Coalition mantras are:

    1. Australia produces only 1.5% of emissions, therefore it doesn’t matter that much.
    2. The carbon tax will add to the cost of living for everybody.

    On 1: Every country in the world can claim minority status on emissions. China ‘only’ produces around 25%; the US about the same.

    On 2: The appeal here is to the more short-sighted parts of the electorate.

    The world is going to have to budget hard and work hard to keep the average global temperature rise to 2 degrees. That pretty well inevitably will be the world of our grandchildren. And Tony Abbott’s, Julie Bishop’s and the rest of the denialist pack’s.

    Let the average temperature rise by 2 degrees and see what THAT does to the cost of living; for those who have to pay for it.

    But by the way the denialists are working for it, the rise will go past 3 degrees.

  25. Socratease

    The Bishop death stare alone could raise the earth’s temperature by more than 3 degrees.

  26. William Logan

    @Charlto.Honk

    There’s also a 3rd option there: the opportunity-cost of an over-specialized economy. If Chinese demand for coal dries up (and they demand something like 50% of world production – single largest buyer as a nation-state) then the Australian economy will take one great big hit because prices will plummet.

    And there are good reasons to think it will happen: coal powerplants don’t just put out CO2. They put out sulfur dioxide (particularly in China where most don’t have scrubbers), heavy metal pollution and particulate soot pollution. These are highly local effects which are actively contributing the degradation of land and waterways in China, and that is a problem their leaders *are* worried about – to the extent that China is likely to become one of the largest mass-builders of nuclear power plants within the next decade (they are actively developing pebble-bed reactors, though a thorium project in collaboration with India would not be out of the question – at a guess).

    Now if they can do that once, it’s unlikely they’ll stop there: cleaning up their country and plummeting the price of coal means their steel production prices plummet. It also means that big 25% of global CO2 emissions drops to about 12.5% (conservatively) – and probably keeps dropping if their mega-scale mass transport projects keep expanding (10,000km of high-speed rail, up from 0km in around 2003).

    And that brings in one more aspect of this: the Chinese would *love* to show up the West in a big way. And the best way they could do that is by rocking up to a climate conference and pushing hard with a country like India (with their thorium nuclear reactors) to price CO2 because they’ll be in prime position to bank the profits of selling off permits, and likely to go on shopping their reactor and solar technology to the 3rd world.

    Meanwhile, Australia get’s to play catchup while coal and iron-ore mines go bankrupt because the age of the record high prices has disappeared for good. Not even Uranium benefits us if Thorium reactors take off since our proven reserves are very small compared to the US.

  27. Fran Barlow

    Frank Campbell said:

    [When the nasty Right takes power, Abbott’s “climate” policies will be exposed as a figleaf. Where will the climate cult hide after a decade of rule by the Right? Shall we postpone Armageddon? The cattle are back in the Alpine National Park, but that’s trivial, isn’t it Fran? But that’s just the start.]

    If Co2e emissions are not abated very seriously on a world scale and very soon, whether cattle are grazing in national parks or old growth forests are being logged or industrial effluent is contaminating rivers or there even is a Green Party or an ALP or a Liberal party will be entirely moot. It.just. won’t.matter. Humanity will have been set back so far that the whole vista of human possibility will need to be reconsidered in the light of the failure of civilisation and its cultural attributes.

  28. Altakoi

    I take issue with this constant assertion that nothing Australia does will have the slightest impact on climate or CO2 emmissions. While its true that our reductions are trivial compared to the emissions of larger countries, that only emphasises the importance of those larger countries taking action. And they are sure not going to reduce their already low per-capita emmissions if we reserve the right to pollute with impunity just because there are fewer of us. Its not a plausible political argument and that is why we should be acting to reduce our per-capita impact.

  29. Frank Campbell

    Fran B:

    You know very well CO2 emissions will continue to soar regardless of the puny “climate action” currently in train…China builds a new FF power station every week. We fuel them. UK and Germany reversed policy, deciding to refurbish their nuclear plants. (Fukushima is now blowing Merkel out of the water). Wind turbines haven’t stopped Danish and German emissions rising but have forced the price of power up. The “solutions” thus far are a sick joke.

    Your fervent belief in computer models of future climate is self-defeating. The heresy-hunting which now prevails is pure Cult. The class-based and class-biased damage being done to the economy guarantees the political defeat of climate millenarianism. It’s been sliding in the polls since 2006.

    What then? What do you do when you’ve handed power to the Right for a decade?
    The worst thing is we’ll have to endure the smug cockerel Bolt crowing from every rooftop…

    You’re the Right’s best friend , Fran

  30. Frank Campbell

    Altakoi says “While its true that our reductions are trivial compared to the emissions of larger countries, that only emphasises the importance of those larger countries taking action. And they are sure not going to reduce their already low per-capita emmissions if we reserve the right to pollute with impunity just because there are fewer of us”

    Trouble is, the world just isn’t like that. It’s provincial conceit to think that big countries give a stuff about what we say or do. Least of all about something so vague and unpredictable as AGW.

    This metropolitan-provincial relationship creates permanent distortions in minor countries: Britain obsesses about its “special relationship” with the USA. The war criminal Blair was a victim of this, pandering and colluding with Bush’s barabarism in Iraq. The USA couldn’t give a bugger about British sensitivities. The angst is pathetically one-sided.

    Australia is worse. All the way with LBJ goes back to Menzies, through Holt, Hawke and now, in the most cringing manner of all, Gillard. Her speech to the congress the other day was excruciating. Massaging oil into Uncle Sam’s leathery skin. The truth is the USA is scarcely aware of australia’s existence.

    States pursue their own interests, period.

  31. JamesH

    I’m guessing Frank thinks it’s ok to litter, not clean up after dogs, cut down rainforests, and kill rare animals for chinese medicine, because everyone else does it and one person’s contribution doesn’t have much effect on the world.

  32. Barry 09

    In the local (Rupert paper ) rag, the member for Forde QLD will host a community forum on the proposed carbon Tax at the Beenleigh Bowls Club on March 29 th from 5.30pm – 7.15pm – COST $20 Special Guest is Sophie (Lipstick ) Mirabella MP . PH. 38076340 No sign of any scientists going ???????????????? BYO One Nation T Shirts

  33. Barry 09

    Just rang them , its been cancelled ? Asked if any Scientists were going ? NO , just information from scientists ??? Got referred to Tony Abbot’s Office ?

  34. Frank Campbell

    JamesH goes:
    “I’m guessing Frank thinks it’s ok to litter, not clean up after dogs, cut down rainforests, and kill rare animals for chinese medicine, because everyone else does it and one person’s contribution doesn’t have much effect on the world.”

    Funny you should say that James- and typical. Non-sequiturs every one. Aust. could, by manipulating bilateral interests, put some pressure on pseudo-states like Indonesia to stop destroying rainforest. Far more guaranteed environmental damage (and regional climate change) occurs from the burning of Borneo than the iffy projections of the Univ. of East Bumcrack.

    As for litter, for the past 10 years we’ve kept a 17km stretch of road clean. A more useful obsession than the climate cult. Then there’s the thousands of trees we’ve planted, ummm, let’s see, native vegetation protection, erosion control, elimination of weeds from 2km of riverbank and hills…take the Spear Thistle: a truly vicious thing, it can grow to 2 metres and crowd out everything on river flats. The thorns go through big mower tyres. There were half a million Spear thistles here 10 years ago. Each year we dig them up, mow them down. Spot-spray the sods. Final assault was three years ago: 250,000 removed by hand and burned in 200 bonfires. To kill the seeds. In 2009 there were 22,000 new ones. 2010 there were 5000. This year looks like about 2000. And yes, we count every motherfucking thistle.

    So individuals can make a difference, but climate hysteria is producing exactly the disengagement from personal responsibility that you allude to: Armageddon discourages all activity except Salvation. Salvation is achieved (in this cult) by “caahbun” emission reduction. Politics is castrated, reduced to an insane struggle over CO2…Gillard told us yesterday that “progress” equated to passing the caahbun tax.
    Linguistic reductionism is rife: progress= caahbun tax; pollution= CO2 emissions; “reform” = a “proyce on caaaahbun”; politics= “addwessing cloymutt chainge”.

    It is all indescribably banal and self-defeating. The cult losers followers every day. Just look at the polls. So you’ll end up with a Santamaria yobbo like Abbott and no “action on climate” -apart from what the Libs threw into their overnight bag last election: a small plantation, some algae and no underpants at all.

  35. tentomushi1

    Frank, I have said this before and I will happily say it again, we have a moral responsibility to take this situation seriously and face it head on.
    In 1807 Great Britain face a very similar situation, there were relying on a very cheap but morally expensive form of energy to power the running of their empire. It was debated in parliament to abolish this form of unethical energy and, as we are still currently debating, it was argued that this form of energy should be kept as the British colonies would become uncompetitive having to rely on more expensive forms of power.
    I am sure that there were a lot of people, slaves and non-slaves alike who were happy that the Slave Trade Act of 1807 was passed because the British Government felt that it had a moral responsibility to do away with using them to power the Empire the fear that it would make them uncompetitive.
    Funny how the British Empire did not collapse however went on to thrive and come up with an amazing array of innovations without the use of slaves to power their economy.
    I am sure that there are a lot of people, Australians and non-Australians alike, that would be very grateful to see Australia tackle its use on non-ethical power especially when there are other options available.

  36. Frank Campbell

    Let’s see if we can get Marge to 1000 comments…

    a score to give Bolt the irrits…

  37. Frank Campbell

    oh it’s not Marge is it, it’s Bernie:. oh well, same point

  38. tentomushi1

    Do we include all of yours in that tally Frank or just the ones that actually add something constructive to the discussion?

  39. Flower

    A simpleton understands that hydrocarbons contaminate and/or kill humans, terrestrial animals, marine life, crops and vegetation before they eventually oxidize to CO2.

    A simpleton understands that hydrocarbons burn to CO2 – an indisputable warming gas. The rapidity of A/CO2 to the atmosphere over the last hundred years, is unprecedented. A simpleton understands that fossil fuel emissions of CO2 are pollutants. Julie Bishop should be force-fed an aperitif – a benzene cocktail would do the trick – a Group One carcinogen. That would be putting her money where her mouth is.

    Bishop is an eco-vandal – an advocate for pollution, – a crime against humanity. Throw her in the slammer and let her peruse the following while she’s cooling her heels and screeching “foul”:

    http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/summary-docs/investigation-reports/Monckton-response.pdf

  40. danr

    A simpleton misunderstands that fossil fuel emissions of CO2 are pollutants when really CO2 is the only non pollutant in the combustion process.

Leave a comment

Advertisement

https://www.crikey.com.au/2011/03/28/the-bishops-gambit-cutting-and-pasting-denialist-errors/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

Free Trial form on Pop Up

Free Trial form on Pop Up
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.