My good friend Chris Berg is getting soft in his old age. Yesterday as part of an otherwise good piece on internet fact checking he made this comment*:
Did Julia Gillard lie about the carbon tax on 16 August 2010? Well, yes. And no.
She probably thought she wouldn’t introduce a “carbon tax” in the next term of government. But that didn’t mean she wouldn’t introduce an emissions trading scheme. And what we call a carbon tax in 2012 is actually the latter with an initial fixed price.Yet free market economists have long insisted that, contrary to popular wisdom, there’s not a big conceptual difference between a tax and a trading scheme. They both price carbon. A tax could be described as a “market mechanism” too.
The point is these are terms of art, not science.
So let’s remind ourselves what Gillard said:
Okay – so how does Gillard explain the 2010 ALP election policy on climate change – summarised by the ABC?
Note the very first item:
Commitment to market based emission reduction scheme, but not before 2012 to reduce emissions by between 5-15 per cent
Looks to me that the ALP implemented exactly what they promised in their stated policy. So Gillard staring down the camera and saying there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead is a lie. Pure and simple.
The problem is that Chris is trying to be even handed – politicians are not all that different from each other and face similar incentives and so behave in similar ways. It is true that many promises have to be broken as circumstances change and most politicians do the best they can under difficult circumstances. But I can’t see Gillard’s carbon tax statement in that context. Alternatively one could argue that she told a necessary lie, a noble lie. On that issue we can argue the toss. That, however, is an entirely different argument.
* Yes – I am enjoying the irony that I am fact-checking Chris’ piece on fact-checking.
Update: In his defence Chris claims that he is channelling my good self (well actually he didn’t use those precise words):
The emissions trading scheme (ETS) is advertised as being a “market solution to a market problem”. This is a clever piece of rhetoric that has long escaped scrutiny. Many economists support the notion of emission trading on the basis that it is “market based”.
…
Many policymakers like the market analogy because it allows them to sidestep the most obvious solution to anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) – taxation.ETS proponents, however, are likely to argue that market solutions are preferable to government intervention. But this market solution is just government intervention in a different format. Markets emerge through human action, not human design.
Chris argues that Gillard can rely on the type of argument that I had outlined in that op-ed. I’m still not convinced. In the debate about policy solutions to global warming an ETS and a tax are both “market” based solutions. The Coalition ‘direct action’ plan is a non-market solution (the best anyone can say about this policy is that the coalition doesn’t plan to spend very much). One of the points I was making in that piece is the misleading use of terminology in the debate.
I have put “market” in scare quotes above because an ETS is an artificial market.
So Sinclair, how do you explain Gillard’s interview with Paul Kelly?
She seems to think that her two sentences can be spoken in the same breath, and do not conflict with each other.
m0nty
14 Nov 12 at 10:33 am
Actually, a carbon tax reduces GDP volatility from stochastic shocks relative to an emissions trading scheme. They are not basically the same; an emissions trading scheme is the worst design available.
Econocrat
14 Nov 12 at 10:40 am
m0nty – confirms my view that she lied.
Sinclair Davidson
14 Nov 12 at 10:41 am
I think there is a substantial difference between stating something that you know to be contrary to the facts that already exist, and stating something about your own intentions or even desires that you know in your heart to be untrue, and stating something about future events which may not come to pass due to factors beyond your control.
I think they are all getting called “lies” but some of them are borrowing the rhetorical impact of others.
I still want her and her ideas gone forever..
Ooh Honey Honey
14 Nov 12 at 10:42 am
So, no ETS, no carbon tax. Yep.
Gab
14 Nov 12 at 10:43 am
“m0nty – confirms my view that she lied.”
You can only say that if you knew she actually intended to introduce a CO2 tax. Do you have any evidence that would allow us to infer her state of mind?
Jarrah
14 Nov 12 at 10:54 am
Then what about Swan’s comments that the Oppostion was “hysterical” (misogynist!)?
Less chance to argue semantics there…
ar
14 Nov 12 at 10:56 am
Before the election “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”.
After the election, “There will be a carbon tax under the government i lead”.
Facts are facts. Who knows her intent before or after the election however the motivation for the lie is clear and there for all to see, for those whose eyes are open, at any rate.
Gab
14 Nov 12 at 10:58 am
Sinclair! This must be a first; mOnty agreeing with you.
Quite right mOuntie; she lied.
Hubert East
14 Nov 12 at 10:59 am
She said no carbon tax on TV to get more votes, that’s all, their polling told them carbon tax wasn’t a vote winner.
candy
14 Nov 12 at 11:00 am
I knew these idiots would introduce some form of tax/charge/impost, etc, on carbon dioxide before I cast a vote in the 2010 election.
However, how many people would not have voted for laybore if this had been an explicit policy unmuddied by dullard’s statement in the video above?
Quite frankly, it didn’t matter what the vile harridan claimed before the election, it was always laybore’s specific policy to place a tax on air.
Anyone who thought otherwise was at the very least “uninformed”, to put it kindly.
Rabz
14 Nov 12 at 11:02 am
Jarrah: “Do you have any evidence that would allow us to infer her state of mind?”
The ALP party platform??
Sinclair Davidson
14 Nov 12 at 11:05 am
She said she would implement a market-based mechanism not a tax, she implemented a market-based mechanism with a temporarily fixed price. Where is the lie?
You, Sinc, as an economist, should know that terms as they are used in political debate are often divorced from the reality of actual policy, and you should know that the Labor policy is not actually a tax as economists define it. It is a creation of property rights. Don’t come the raw prawn over the public misuse of the word “tax”.
m0nty
14 Nov 12 at 11:06 am
Tell me more about this fascinating theory you have.
Sinclair Davidson
14 Nov 12 at 11:10 am
The carbon price is no more a tax than broadcast spectrum rights, or intellectual property rights.
m0nty
14 Nov 12 at 11:18 am
Gillard LIED. The rusted on Laborites, mOnty ETC. can all it anything they like, the pain and simple fact is – SHE LIED.
Muphin
14 Nov 12 at 11:19 am
Point taken. Maybe it’s just me but I think the electorate has already lost interest.
Tapdog
14 Nov 12 at 11:20 am
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/archive/national-old/julia-gillard-finally-admits-its-a-tax/story-e6freuzr-1226085918836
Gab
14 Nov 12 at 11:20 am
There are two issues here – first whether she broke her word and second whether she knew she would when she said what she did.
I think it’s pretty clear she broke her word – we are living under a carbon tax after all and the Oz article goes further and says that “any carbon price would not be triggered until after the 2013 election”. If only.
So the only issue is whether she didn’t intend to keep her promise when she made it. That is less clear. But I do think she has lied repeatedly since the election in saying that she was somehow ‘forced’ to break her word due to the hung parliament.
Sleetmute
14 Nov 12 at 11:23 am
“The ALP party platform??”
What can that possibly say about her state of mind?
“She said no carbon tax on TV to get more votes, that’s all, their polling told them carbon tax wasn’t a vote winner.”
candy’s 100% correct. Spooked by Abbott’s successful scare campaign about the word ‘tax’, Gillard promised her carbon price wouldn’t be in the form of a tax. She broke her promise.
Jarrah
14 Nov 12 at 11:24 am
mOnty, in that article, she clearly distinguished between a “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism” and a “carbon tax”. Clearly, when she referred to a ‘market-based mechanism’, she meant that the price per tonne of emissions would be set by the market, as opposed to a carbon tax where the price is fixed. She wasn’t referring to a ‘market-based mechanism’ to mean that the source of abatement would be decided by the market.
Sleetmute
14 Nov 12 at 11:28 am
She lied. All other assertions are lunacy and fly in the face of plain facts.
.
14 Nov 12 at 11:33 am
It isn’t really very edifying, seeing those desperate Gillard apologists squirming so helplessly. Gillard made a statement on public TV that was extremely clearly intended to have general application, that there would be no Carbon tax.
That statement for general political consumption included all manner of mechanisms, it is pure weasel words to insists that it is so highly specific as to enable one with a straight face to declare that it left her able to introduce an effective carbon tax by other means without being deceptive. It was, in the circumstances, a bald faced, deliberate, and manipulative lie from a person so dishonest as to make Richard Nixon look like a near saint.
What next, could we see “I will not raise taxes”, followed by the introduction of a range of personal “levies” on income over certain amounts ? After all, a levy is not, strictly speaking, a tax, it’s a levy, and don’t you weirdo far out right wingers get the distinction ?
Ed Snack
14 Nov 12 at 11:34 am
Yes, I agree.
Sinclair Davidson
14 Nov 12 at 11:37 am
She
liedbroke her promise. All other assertions are lunacy and fly in the face of plain facts.FTFY
Jarrah
14 Nov 12 at 11:39 am
Yes Sleetmute, the market-based mechanism has been implemented, and the price will soon be unfixed. Is it a tax when the price is temporarily fixed but not a tax when the price is unfixed? A rather thin hair to split, I would have thought. Not enough to state baldly that she lied.
m0nty
14 Nov 12 at 11:41 am
Yes, she realised she would lose votes so she lied to get those votes.
Gab
14 Nov 12 at 11:41 am
mOnty, a three-year fixed price? If that doesn’t fit the description of a carbon tax, I don’t know what does.
Sleetmute
14 Nov 12 at 11:44 am
There is much less confusion about lying in Queensland.
Campbell Newman before the Queensland state election -
After the election 14000 plus were made redundant.
As I said – simple stuff. The LNP have turned lying into an art form.
1735099
14 Nov 12 at 11:50 am
Another thread derailment imminent. The subject is Gillard but lets throw some lies about Newman into the mix.
Gab
14 Nov 12 at 11:53 am
No lies. It’s straightforward.
1735099
14 Nov 12 at 11:56 am
Is it a tax, in your eyes, if the price is not fixed?
m0nty
14 Nov 12 at 11:57 am
Champagne comedy from monty. A first year failed economic student arguing with Sinc over the mechanisms of the tax.
At least Jarrah has a legit argument as to whether it was a broken promise and not neccessarily a lie. For what its worth, from previous form, shes [a tad OTT. Sinc], so not a broken promise in my opinion.
harrys on the boat
14 Nov 12 at 11:59 am
Lying in politics must always be viewed from a Machiavellian perspective.
The rules of Christian morality do not apply in politics.
The attempt to paint Gillard as a politician who has, seemingly uniquely, contravened morality makes references to other politicians and their actions an integral part of the discussion.
Scapula
14 Nov 12 at 12:00 pm
Breaking a promise and lying are the same thing to the betrayed.
candy
14 Nov 12 at 12:00 pm
“Yes, she realised she would lose votes so she lied to get those votes.”
How do you know? People who claim she was lying either are psychic, or read her diary where she says “ha ha, suckers”.
Jarrah
14 Nov 12 at 12:00 pm
“Breaking a promise and lying are the same thing to the betrayed.”
The effect is the same, sure. But they really are different things.
Jarrah
14 Nov 12 at 12:02 pm
Numbers – stop telling lies. Nowhere in your link does it mention forced redundancies.
The Budget papers state that the total reduction in FTE positions is about 14,000 – with the difference between that figure and the numbers above due to the Government discontinuing temporary positions and not filling vacant positions.
We get it, you don’t like Newman. Big Deal, stop being such a poo flinging howler monkey.
Carpe Jugulum
14 Nov 12 at 12:03 pm
FTFY
Gab
14 Nov 12 at 12:04 pm
Were Mrs Emerson, Mrs Wilson and their children, friends and families, lied to or experience a broken promise?
harrys on the boat
14 Nov 12 at 12:05 pm
Jarrah – by your definition nobody can ever claim someone else lied.
Sinclair Davidson
14 Nov 12 at 12:14 pm
You can’t read. My second link takes you a page which lists the reduncancies by department.
Read beyond –
1735099
14 Nov 12 at 12:15 pm
Good. Those people are in jobs which destroy more jobs than what will be lost.
.
14 Nov 12 at 12:16 pm
That does not say forced redundancies.
Carpe Jugulum
14 Nov 12 at 12:16 pm
She lied, pure and simple. She never even committed to introducing an emissions trading scheme.
Her policy was to build a “community consensus” and wait until the end of 2012 to see what the rest of the world did:
Milton Von Smith
14 Nov 12 at 12:20 pm
Jarrahs argument is bollocks. The definition of a lie is to intentionally mislead others when they expect honest communication.
Therefore Gillards frame of mind is irrelevant. We expected honesty and didn’t get it. She lied to us.
harrys on the boat
14 Nov 12 at 12:24 pm
The ‘community consensus’ arrived with the negotiations consequent upon the election of an evenly-divided Parliament.
Scapula
14 Nov 12 at 12:25 pm
You should get a job in political media. You’re a master of spin. Call them “cuts” if you like, but bottom line is they were told their jobs were safe before the election (including my bother-in-law who lives in Ashgrove, Newman’s electorate) and were offered forced redundancies after.
Newman refused to speak to my sister when she asked to meet him to ask “what part of ‘no forced redundancies’ he didn’t understand.
He’s a snake, and his government is a cabal of white shoes, metro spivs, failed developers and agragian socialists. It will implode – already giving signs of exactly that.
1735099
14 Nov 12 at 12:26 pm
Numbers lie just then was technically worse than Gillards, because he intentionally mislead us. He linked to an article which he knew didn’t state “forced” redundancies, but claimed it did.
Saying that was anyone expecting honest communication from a deserting filthy communist whose a blight to our great nation.
harrys on the boat
14 Nov 12 at 12:28 pm
Numbers
So then you concede that they were not forced redundancies.
And spare me the gillard level of hyperbowl.
Carpe Jugulum
14 Nov 12 at 12:29 pm
I conceded nothing. They are redundancies and they are forced. Your responses and ad-hominem crap is typical of the cognitive confusion always apparent on this site.
I’ll keep it simple.
Newman lied. No ifs, buts, or maybes. Suck it up. Queenslanders have, and we don’t forget….
1735099
14 Nov 12 at 12:38 pm
Pedantry break: breaking a promise is not lying, criticising one woman’s political actions is not misogyny, expecting performance from an employee that he or she thinks is too difficult is not bullying, lack of a normal standard of housing (such as a room for entertaining) is not homelessness.
Words are important and stretching their meaning too far is dangerous. Clear communication requires reasonable precision.
End pedantry break.
ken n
14 Nov 12 at 12:39 pm
The crucial point is that whilst the debate here about the differences between a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme are interesting, they are completely irrelevant and miss the point. Neither of these mechanisms were Gillard’s policies before the election. After the election, they became her policy. So she lied.
Milton Von Smith
14 Nov 12 at 12:40 pm
Perhaps Sinclair could provide us with another thread that deals with Newman and leave this thread to dealing with gillard and not get derailed by the tu quoque* gambit employed as a deflection by numbers.
*as monty would say
Gab
14 Nov 12 at 12:42 pm
Or perhaps it was the ABC that lied when it said:
Milton Von Smith
14 Nov 12 at 12:44 pm
Numbers. I feel sorry for the children you taught.
Tiny Dancer
14 Nov 12 at 12:44 pm
No Numbers, they are not forced. You posted links and claimed they were forced redundancies.
It is obvious to anyone who went to your links that they were not forced redundancies. You got it wrong so man up and admit it.
Stating the fact that you are using a gillard level of hyperbowl is not an Ad Hom.
Carpe Jugulum
14 Nov 12 at 12:44 pm
Gab – you are correct, but i found the assertion made by Numbers risible. The OP is probably a better place for this debate.
Carpe Jugulum
14 Nov 12 at 12:47 pm
So back to TLS.
Carpe Jugulum
14 Nov 12 at 12:48 pm
You’re the one that’s risible (or delusional). The by-line for the report I linked to is –
But then, why should I be surprised. Most Libertarians of my acquaintance are. Their mantra is – “white is black, up is down, and left is right”.
They are very weird people.
1735099
14 Nov 12 at 1:38 pm
Numbers let me make this realy simple for you.
You asserted that they were FORCED redundancies, none of your links even mentioned FORCED redundancies.
You cocked up and shot your mouth off, be a man and admit it and stop trying to divert attention from the crooks currently inhabiting the government benches.
Carpe Jugulum
14 Nov 12 at 1:47 pm
Monty was invented by conservatives to demonstrate that the Left is stupid.
Beautifully illustrated in the argument that the ‘carbon’ tax, is not a carbon ‘tax’.
Jannie
14 Nov 12 at 2:03 pm
No you absolute pillock – let me put it in words you understand. I’ll try to use words of one syllable.
You are a public servant (in my brother-in-law’s case in a senior position in Treasury which he’d held for over thirty years). You’re told as of Friday your job no longer exists. You’re given a DCM (don’t come Monday).
You have two options. One is to accept a payout (based of the PS agreement). The other is to have your name put on a redeployment list. There are no jobs to which you can be redeployed because they have been cut across departments. If you chose redployment, unless the planets line up, you will be told at the end of twelve months that you are redundant. If you chose this option there is no payout as stipulated by the PS Act.
Now you tell me what is not forced about that.
You are as thick as two short planks if you don’t understand that.
1735099
14 Nov 12 at 2:34 pm
Numbers – stiff shit.
Infidel tiger
14 Nov 12 at 2:37 pm
We have put a levy on carbon pollution. Stiff shit.
1735099
14 Nov 12 at 2:39 pm
I’m rich. It only affects poor people! Suck it.
Infidel tiger
14 Nov 12 at 2:42 pm
I dunno if she lied after the CO2 tax lie I just know that everywhere I go and here at home, since that lie, if she pops her head up on the Teevee, nobody cares what lies or truths she spouts or doesn’t spout , we just turn,and we consider we have the right to keep trolls and alleged crooks out of out homes, also, the Teevee is for entertainment and leisure, not for fright shows.
Jazza
14 Nov 12 at 2:42 pm
In the public service you cry your way out the door as you could the wads of cash due to the fact your untaken Sick Leave, untaken Annual and Long Service Leave, and your Redundancy (paid based upon years of service) will be paid out at the rate per your last position (the peak of your career).
Sounds the type of river of tears most people would dream about.
Token
14 Nov 12 at 2:54 pm
Two errors in one seven word sentence.
FFS, you are an indescribably ignorant, infuriating imbecile.
1st error: It’s a ‘carbon (dioxide) price‘, not a ‘levy’.
2nd error: There is no such thing as ‘carbon (dioxide) pollution’.
You fucking moron.
Rabz
14 Nov 12 at 3:09 pm
Pollution is something that stuffs up the environment. Too much carbon does precisely that.
A “levy” is the most accurate technical description.
What’s that funny smell?
Oh look, old Potty Mouth is back.
1735099
14 Nov 12 at 3:36 pm
Numbers, you come from a family of losers obviously. Everyone on the public teat.
Plus, idiot, we didn’t do anything. The lying slapper did.
Tiny Dancer
14 Nov 12 at 3:41 pm
What part of there were no forced redundancies don’t you understand you dribbler.
That is called redundancy not FORCED redundancy.
That is called redundancy not FORCED redundancy.
That is called redundancy not FORCED redundancy.
I called you on your bullshit and all you have is shrieking like a bed wetting toddler. Man up and admit you were wrong pussy.
Carpe Jugulum
14 Nov 12 at 4:01 pm
Numbers:
Correct, and CO2 does not do this. It is an entirely beneficial trace gas utterly essential to all plant life.
Therefore, CO2 is not a pollutant.
Horseshit. Current CO2 concentration is low to very low by historical standards at roughly 400ppmv. It has been vastly (order of magnitude vastly) higher than this in relatively recent geological times. Times when life on this planet was explosively abundant.
But we DO have a truly 100% gullible Gaiaist here, so it’s time for the challenge!
Hey, numbers, in many years, no warmenist has been able to answer this challenge. Normally they slink away like whipped dogs. Some hunt desperately for Holy Text from the Goreacle’s Church of Glowbull Warmenating, others get hysterically abusive.
Which will you be?
(Not one has ever said ‘I have been taken in by con-men’ – the cultic belief is far too strong and the emotional bond too deep for that)
Go!
Mk50 of Brisbane
14 Nov 12 at 4:02 pm
I’m correct, you syphilitic old knobgobbler.
Rabz
14 Nov 12 at 4:03 pm
Here’s a picture
.
manalive
14 Nov 12 at 4:08 pm
This is an outright lie by an obnoxious halfwit.
It has been repeatedly answered in threads past.
Just because you repeat something often does not make it true.
steve from brisbane
14 Nov 12 at 4:09 pm
So what is the answer?
Carpe Jugulum
14 Nov 12 at 4:14 pm
One braindead wrongologist rushes to the defence of another even more staggeringly stupid wrongologist.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so fucking pathetic.
Rabz
14 Nov 12 at 4:14 pm
Oh, Shitfer’s is one of several bog-standard leftard responses. They’ll do a quick google, find something linked (or claim Berner & Kothavala ‘say something different’), post that. It gets demolished, they ignore that and just repeat their lying claim to have ‘answered it’.
Pure Goebbels.
Shitfer’s just trying to head off any response from Numbers, which will enable him to slink off like a whipped cur.
Seen this many, many times now.
Mk50 of Brisbane
14 Nov 12 at 4:29 pm
I am not wasting my time once again linking to various articles that deal with the MK50 claim, only to have him turn up again in a few months time and claim that it has never been answered.
I am pretty sure it is Jarrah who has also wasted time engaging with MK50 on this issue.
MK50 is an obnoxious halfwit who is also dishonest. [Just in case you missed this the first time.]
steve from brisbane
14 Nov 12 at 4:35 pm
Stevieliar QC – get back over to the brown paper bag blog – Juliar needs your help. You’re just making a cock of yourself here so get over there and then prepare dinner.
Tiny Dancer
14 Nov 12 at 4:42 pm
Slightly off topic, but has anyone read AGW’s premier journalist George Monbiots apology to Lord McAlpine? I followed a few links and ended up at his shit hole of a blog, but the apology is something to behold.
The most grovelling, snivelling, “please don’t sue me into oblivion” piece you’ll ever read! Its hilarious! It should be on his tombstone as an epitaph to his life, but an apology to mankind. His mediocre eputation is ruined, hopefully his bank balance and life too.
harrys on the boat
14 Nov 12 at 4:52 pm
* reputation
harrys on the boat
14 Nov 12 at 4:53 pm
Thanks, Shitfer, for illustrating another standard leftard AGW cultist response: a haughty sniff, hooter raised, a small flounce, then the old ‘this is so beneath me because I posted something’ schtick.
Always conveniently not mentioned is that what was posted was irrelevant, or simply demolished.
Funny, that.
Any more illustrations of standard leftard ploys you’d care to amuse us with?
Mk50 of Brisbane
14 Nov 12 at 4:54 pm
You were asked for a simple answer not an essay on link whoring.
Carpe Jugulum
14 Nov 12 at 4:54 pm
Harry, he’s always been a laughing stock.
The term ‘Moonbat’ is derived from his name.
Rabz
14 Nov 12 at 4:57 pm
Too true Rabz, too true.
harrys on the boat
14 Nov 12 at 5:01 pm
Oh, and Shitfer?
YOU were not asked.
Which begs the question as to why your outbreak of crying and hand-wringing.
Did having your cult challenged hurt you that badly, poor diddums?
Mk50 of Brisbane
14 Nov 12 at 5:03 pm
Derailment alert! Please to ignore the Numbers troll.
Ken’s right, a broken promise is not the same as a lie.
Jarrah’s right, the effect is the same.
Jazza’s also right, those offended have written her off and stopped listening.
The scary part is the large number of voters (numbers and SfB being exemplars) who don’t care that she lied (or broke her promise). If politicians can lie (or break their promises) without being punished, then the whole structure of representative democracy goes out the door.
Cato the Elder
14 Nov 12 at 5:11 pm
Too late Cato, the howler monkeys in residence have already derailed the train.
And yes i am also compliciit for biting back.
Carpe Jugulum
14 Nov 12 at 5:16 pm
You arrogant stupid asshat.
It’s in your mind only that they have been deemed “irrelevant or simply demolished”.
You’re a gullible disciple of Ian Plimer, who has as much credibility on this issue as the odd medical professor who has argued for years that the connection between HIV and AIDS is not proved.
Anyway, you’re a bloviating, drama queen speaking culture warrior who has been useful for one thing only – showing that CL was completely wrong about Angus Houston.
I only intervened because of your dishonesty – and it is that – in claiming “no one can ever answer this …bullshit bullshit bullshit. They run away like ..blah blah bullshit blah blah”.
steve from brisbane
14 Nov 12 at 5:20 pm
“She said she would implement a market-based mechanism not a tax, she implemented a market-based mechanism with a temporarily fixed price. Where is the lie?”
Misleading may not be the same as a lie, but it is still fundamentally dishonest. This goes to the heart of her lack of integrity. Your semantics make you an apologist, supportive of the fact that Gillard’s election-eve misrepresentation likely swayed a number of crucial votes in a very close election.
The Beer Whisperer
14 Nov 12 at 5:23 pm
Funny line of argument that, when so many on this site have spent days moaning about how stuffed the US is because Obama has been returned.
You really are a bunch of hypocritical losers. On the one hand holding representative democracy up as the ideal, and on the other condemning its outcomes.
1735099
14 Nov 12 at 5:25 pm
Whether it was a broken promise or a lie, only Gillard knows or will ever know that.
I believe it was a lie, others will give her the benefit of the doubt.
manalive
14 Nov 12 at 5:27 pm
Hilarious.
Gab
14 Nov 12 at 5:36 pm
@Mk 50
Hilarious.
You’re quoting Berner and Kothavala (2001).
That work was thoroughly and comprehensively discredited in 2008. See – Gomez, Simon and Sheppard, and Theverard – δ13C and stomatal number variability in the Cretaceous conifer Frenelopsis in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
Volume 257, Issue 4, 1 February 2008, Pages 462–473
Here’s the guts of it – Comparison with previously published marine carbonate δ13C records indicate that the difference in cuticle δ13C between the different deposits are mainly due to difference in CO2-plant isotope fractionation rather than to change in isotopic composition of inorganic carbon in the atmosphere and ocean
So their conclusion was based on what the plant was doing – not what the atmosphere was doing. In other words – a faulty conclusion based on a false assumption.
1735099
14 Nov 12 at 5:56 pm
Well, no. Because we got what she indicated she wanted, and what I and other voters wanted, except we got it a year or so earlier than expected.
Wooo! Crisis!
steve from brisbane
14 Nov 12 at 6:03 pm
What a contorted lot of rubbish.
You basically you saw the “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead” and thought Hey! I know she doesn’t mean that, she’s lying so I’m going to vote for her. Brilliant. Genius even.
Gab
14 Nov 12 at 6:06 pm
Get over it folks. Abbott has to find something else to campaign on.
Carbon tax so yesterday
NIELSEN RESEARCH DIRECTOR JOHN STIRTON
SteveC
14 Nov 12 at 6:21 pm
a good review of voting intention polls since introduction of the carbon price:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2012/11/11/trends-the-horserace-and-random-numbers/
SteveC
14 Nov 12 at 6:22 pm
Actually Gab, I didn’t vote in the House of Reps last time. I’m sure I have mentioned that before.
Gillard’s “let’s spend a year trying to convince the public” plan was a dud way of dealing with it.
I was pleasantly surprised that a hung Parliament led to a better policy outcome. It was not one, however, that is dramatically different to what Gillard and Labor made it clear that they wanted pre-election. It’s earlier, that’s all; and a fixed price period is not a tax.
(Hey, take it up with Chris Berg if you disagree.)
steve from brisbane
14 Nov 12 at 6:24 pm
Step
Please you you own words when abusing people and none that I introduced. Anyone else of course can use asshat, but not leftwing trolls like you.
JC
14 Nov 12 at 6:25 pm
We don’t know if she deliberately lied. But that doesn’t matter. She basically broke a firm pledge and she’s therefore a dishonest Slapper…. (the last bit is redundant).
JC
14 Nov 12 at 6:27 pm
gillard disagrees with you.
Gab
14 Nov 12 at 6:27 pm
Hey Mk50 that’s total bullshit. You have posted that story on many blogs. On any that have a scientific bent you have been roundly demolished. But you put put your fingers in your ears and chant “I can’t hear you”. What you mean to say is “I don’t accept any evidence to the contrary”. If any blog readers here want to check (as if!), just post some of Mk50′s “challenge” into google and read some of the scientific responses. Usually the one slinking away is Mk50.
You may also want to look for MarkL of Canberra which is a name Mk50 used in the past on other blogs.
SteveC
14 Nov 12 at 6:30 pm
No, I think she actually said something like she was not going to “argue the point” or “split hairs”. Something like that.
I don’t recall her saying “well, yes, this is a precisely the tax I promised not to have.”
This was likely another Gillard mistake. She should have made the argument. Chris Berg would have seen the point.
steve from brisbane
14 Nov 12 at 6:31 pm
Thanks SteveC. I thought it was Jarrah who had gone after MK50 on this before, but maybe it was just you.
steve from brisbane
14 Nov 12 at 6:36 pm
SteveC
Go have a quiet romantic chat with Kimberly, your plastic sex doll and companion as no one in the world gives a toss about gliamte Change. It’s so 2007.
JC
14 Nov 12 at 6:36 pm
JC, please don’t be an arse wipe.
SteveC
14 Nov 12 at 6:38 pm
She can’t argue the point. She would lose.
Tiny Dancer
14 Nov 12 at 6:38 pm
Mk50 – Where are you?
1735099
14 Nov 12 at 6:41 pm
Well, no one in the world, except for Americans. You know, the place you were in a week or two ago?:
The delicious thing about the story is that is polling by Rasmussen, the Right’s preferred pollster. (Alright, if you insist, given their electoral polling, you can shave a couple of points off that result.)
Any further way you want to embarrass yourself, JC?
steve from brisbane
14 Nov 12 at 6:45 pm
STFU SteveC.
Don’t dare talk to people here in that tone.
JC
14 Nov 12 at 6:49 pm
‘Hey, numbers, in many years, no warmenist has been able to answer this challenge.”
Lies. About a dozen people have answered it. You just don’t want to listen.
Jarrah
14 Nov 12 at 6:50 pm
Numbers, can you put that in your own words please and show how it contradicts: “current CO2 concentration is low to very low by historical standards at roughly 400ppmv “
manalive
14 Nov 12 at 6:52 pm
“Jarrah – by your definition nobody can ever claim someone else lied.”
Not so. Lies are statements contrary to the facts. So any statement which can be compared to the facts can be proven to be a lie or not.
If you don’t have facts to compare it to, you might be able to make a reasonable inference that a statement was a lie, if there is other evidence to look at.
Like I said, the only way anyone can say Gillard was lying would be if they were psychic, or have seen contemporaneous evidence about her state of mind which indicates she was lying.
Jarrah
14 Nov 12 at 6:54 pm
So the fact that the ALP policy platform called for a policy that was actually implemented when the PM said it wouldn’t be is irrelevant?
Sinclair Davidson
14 Nov 12 at 6:57 pm
fair go JC, at least I can spell arse correctly. You spent too long in the USA.
SteveC
14 Nov 12 at 6:58 pm
You can regard it as relevant Sinc. I think voters will regard it as one more in a long list of broken promises by politicians seeking election. And it will have no sting in 12 months time. Abbott needs some actual policies to campaign on.
SteveC
14 Nov 12 at 7:00 pm
As mOnty pointed out, she said:
“I don’t rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism,” she said of the next parliament. “I rule out a carbon tax.”
When I read the extract of the Labor policy, it seems the only thing she broke was not having the consensus team rubbish. (Because a fixed price period in an ETS scheme is actually not a tax.)
steve from brisbane
14 Nov 12 at 7:08 pm
Blockhead, The poll was taken like a couple of days after the big storm and because of leftist morons people now think that any weather upset is caused by glimate change.
Three of four weeks later the entire thing is forgotten and no one gives a rats. It’s like here when the nation went into glimate change hysterics over the drought as morons like Tim Flannery made those appalling predictions and frightened the shit out of people people.
The big tell is that the candidates didn’t even talk about and no question was even raised.
If you honestly think that the US government is gung ho on glimate change, I have one response.
hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
There’s as much chance of a carbonic tax or cap and trade occurring as there is you and steveC suddenly being thought of as alpha males. And while on the subject.. remember the pic of the glimate change aluminati. Recall how alpha male stance in the pic? I kept telling you there was never any chance those omegas were going to save the world. None. Yet you didn’t believe me.
Stepford, just look at these appalling fuckers. If this the brains trust of humanity then we deserve total and complete annihilation.
JC
14 Nov 12 at 7:17 pm
Blockhead, The poll was taken like a couple of days after the big storm and because of leftist morons people now think that any weather upset is caused by glimate change.
Three of four weeks later the entire thing is forgotten and no one gives a rats. It’s like here when the nation went into glimate change hysterics over the drought as morons like Tim Flannery made those appalling predictions and frightened the shit out of people people.
The big tell is that the candidates didn’t even talk about and no question was even raised.
If you honestly think that the US government is gung ho on glimate change, I have one response.
hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
There’s as much chance of a carbonic tax or cap and trade occurring as there is you and steveC suddenly being thought of as alpha males. And while on the subject.. remember the pic of the glimate change Illuminati. Recall how alpha male stance in the pic? I kept telling you there was never any chance those omegas were going to save the world. None. Yet you didn’t believe me.
Stepford, just look at these appalling fuckers. If this the brains trust of humanity then we deserve total and complete annihilation.
JC
14 Nov 12 at 7:18 pm
What proportion of that 68% would be willing to pay their own money to address climate change? Not many I am guessing.
Dangph
14 Nov 12 at 7:20 pm
But but but but sinc, she she didn’t lie. Lol.
JC
14 Nov 12 at 7:20 pm
Oh really, Mr. Finance/economist expert. So if it’s not a tax but a fixed price ETS explain where the buyers and sellers are for the credits, you stupid fuck knuckle.
Oh hang on, where exactly are the credits? The market fthe buyers and sellers of that crap? It’s not there?
Hang on, we can’t see any because it’s a fucking tax, not and ETS.
You deserve a thorough clip over the ears for even trying that crap Stepford, you horrendous human being.
JC
14 Nov 12 at 7:25 pm
manalive
14 Nov 12 at 7:29 pm
taking the dog for a walk, numbers.
You’ve just read the abstract, eh? No shame in that and I have to reset my password before I can get access to the whole article tomorrow as the postgrad help desk is closed. So I’ll read the whole thing then and comment on that specific paper if I need to. Also from the abstract, you’ll notice the following: The data as a whole yield a good relationship between the 13C/12C ratio and SD (r = 0.67, n = 42, p < 0.001), SI (r = 0.53, n = 41, p < 0.001), hence suggesting that the differences in SD and SI between the three morphospecies are related to freshwater/saline environment.
Does this not suggest they are defining proxies rather than comparing proxies? I’ll wait until I read the paper to see.
Now, note the strawman you have created here, numbers. It’s the standard strawman of course.
Why is this a strawman? Because you are not answering the question asked: How and why did this [global glaciations] occur [at high Co2 levels], when the computer models you believe in assure us that over circa 450ppmv we will have runaway greenhouse, something which is completely unrepresented in the global geological record of the last 3800 million years?
To simplify this for you: you greentards have computer models that insist runaway greenhouse must occur at specific levels of CO2 (normally 450-550ppmv gets mentioned).
During the periods mentioned there was CO2 concentration higher than this, and a global glaciation.
How can greentard computer models be correct?
Yes, Berner & Kothavala used one proxy. Yes, Gomez & etc use another proxy and there is a difference in their estimates. So what? Both are above current levels, and yet there was a global glaciation.
So how can greentard computer models showing the opposite be correct?
Nice try, though, it’s just that like so many others, you are not actually addressing the question at all, but a different one related to proxy comparisons.
And thanks for the pointer to that paper, I had not read it and it looks to be most interesting.
Mk50 of Brisbane
14 Nov 12 at 7:35 pm
manalive, that hairy faced ladies camel toe is extremely off putting.
Please, a warning next time.
jumpnmcar
14 Nov 12 at 7:42 pm
time will resolve uncertainty.
agreed.
Sinclair Davidson
14 Nov 12 at 7:45 pm
@manalive
Already did.
You’re more than a little misguided – and that’s putting it gently.
1735099
14 Nov 12 at 7:46 pm
I don’t place any faith in the models going forward, but I consider trends and what can be clearly determined from the past.
1735099
14 Nov 12 at 7:51 pm
Well done. You have just proved you are never too old to learn.
jupes
14 Nov 12 at 7:56 pm
max49
14 Nov 12 at 7:56 pm
And so the flailing commences. Again.
Really? What sayeth Mauna Loa?
“October 2012: 391.01 ppm”
This is a long way from 400?
And this is a decent overall summary of levels since the Cambrian. BTW, it was somewhere around 7000 then, 4500 in the ordovician, 4000 in the Devonian, somewhere around current levels in the Carboniferous (funny that), ’bout 3000 in the Triassic etc etc.
Seriously, all you have to do to ‘win’ the challenge is to show that the greentard computer models are correct. Show me a runaway greenhouse effect when CO2 levels rose.
And no, the Permian-Triassic surge was the Siberian traps, and the temp rise stopped, so it was not ‘runaway’, just the most massive volcanic event since the crust formed dwarfing even the Deccan Traps (hell, it fractured the Siberian kraton).
The problem is that there is not one. Full stop. There’s feedback mechanisms which stop them. These mechanisms are called ‘plants’ and there are others we seem to know nothing about.
So the models are horseshit.
So the AGW scare is horseshit.
But a lot of people are making a lot of money off it – Flannery gets $1000 a day.
You are paying for that, sucka.
Mk50 of Brisbane
14 Nov 12 at 8:02 pm
Good.
They also do not explain the past.
Mk50 of Brisbane
14 Nov 12 at 8:04 pm
JC are you suggesting that physical appearance is correlated with intelligence, and that, presumably, smarter people are better looking? In which case, my condolences to Mrs JC.
SteveC
14 Nov 12 at 8:10 pm
You’re an idiot or a knave — I’d guess the former.
manalive
14 Nov 12 at 8:12 pm
Not really. I’m saying they look like losers. Look at them, SteveC. Their posture spells lifetime losers.
JC
14 Nov 12 at 8:12 pm
One of my sons just called, he had another argument with a greentard. This son has studied under Plimer.
The greentard took exception to his T-shirt, which read:
Restore the carboniferous world-forest.
Burn Coal Now!
Greentards, they hate trees.
Mk50 of Brisbane
14 Nov 12 at 8:28 pm
1735099, there’s no point in arguing with Mk50, he can’t hear you with his fingers in his ears while he is saying “La La la La”.
Other interested parties may want to read this and the linked articles.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-higher-in-late-Ordovician.htm
SteveC
14 Nov 12 at 8:31 pm
Is that meant to be a good thing?
SteveC
14 Nov 12 at 8:33 pm
Dear Numbers, you are such a liar.
Now, will you admit you were wrong earlier or will you just act like a typical AJ other ranks girly man?
Carpe Jugulum
14 Nov 12 at 8:35 pm
There is in fact a statistical correlation between intelligence and beauty.
Dangph
14 Nov 12 at 9:00 pm
They have no defences against the glamor of being important climate heroes. They are not going to give that up for a little thing like scientific integrity.
Dangph
14 Nov 12 at 9:02 pm
SteveC – you linked to SkS.
aaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Wow did you jump the shark.
Carpe Jugulum
14 Nov 12 at 9:04 pm
Read the links Carper.
SteveC
14 Nov 12 at 9:19 pm
SkS…. lips, please do not unpurse… mmmpf…..BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….
As for Plimer, he’s highly regarded by industry – y’know, the people who actually use geology, geo mechanics and geophysics to find stuff and generate wealth.
geology is at its core deeply into the study of paleoclimate – for that’s a major determinant regarding where the minerals are.
A student of Plimer’s has an advantage in the job market.
So this son is currently receiving (and rejecting) offers well north of 150k. He knows full well he can double or triple that the day he obtains his Doctorate.
So the answer to your question ‘Is that meant to be a good thing?‘ is ‘hell YES‘.
Thanks for asking.
Mk50 of Brisbane
14 Nov 12 at 9:19 pm
You linked to SkS.
The shark – you just jumped it.
Carpe Jugulum
14 Nov 12 at 9:21 pm
Carpe, while inchoate, badly written with poor grammar and mostly reference free this SkS article DOES destroy the Greentard/Gaiaist cult claims that over 450-550ppmv there will be runaway glowball worming!
So even SkS thinks the models on which the AGW con is based are crap.
Thanks, Steve!
Mk50 of Brisbane
14 Nov 12 at 9:26 pm
Thanks Mk50, very enlightening.
I belive steve is reving the motorcycle in anticipation of his jump over the tank of man eating sharks.
Carpe Jugulum
14 Nov 12 at 9:30 pm
Remember Stevie, chicks dig scars.
.
14 Nov 12 at 9:31 pm
Oh, Carpe, I am laughing like a drain. That SkS link has so many howlers!
Did you know that “…rock weathering, the process that removes CO2 from the air”
Rock weathering. THE process that removes CO2 from the air.
Cool, so there can’t be any in coal or oil then, so we can burn all that lovely fuel to our heart’s content and rock weathering (not plants, not limestone formation via calcium-carbonate shelled organisms oh no) will scrub all that icky CO2 away.
Who writes this site, the Muppets?
It’s freaking hilarious.
Thanks Steve!
Mk50 of Brisbane
14 Nov 12 at 9:36 pm
Mk50, is CTRL-F your major research tool? You need to know if you click it more than once you will find additional occurences of he text you are looking for.
From the same article::
During the Ordovician, solar output was much lower than current levels. Consequently, CO2 levels only needed to fall below 3000 parts per million for glaciation to be possible. The latest CO2 data calculated from sediment cores show that CO2 levels fell sharply during the late Ordovician due to high rock weathering removing CO2 from the air. Thus the CO2 record during the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.
Quick question, what sort of plants existed in the Ordovician?
SteveC
14 Nov 12 at 9:37 pm
Bwahahahahahahahahahaaaaa….
SkS demolishes AGW proponents contention that insolation does not affect average biosphere temperatures!
“This argument fails to take into account that solar output was also lower during these periods. The combined effect of sun…”
Thanks Steve!
Mk50 of Brisbane
14 Nov 12 at 9:41 pm
Wrong. Accumulated sick leave (in my case 2 years worth because iI never took any) when I retired as a principal) is not credited.
Usually you’re asked to take any accrued LSL leave before termination date.
Some of the mythology floating around about the PS on sites like this one is nothing short of bizarre.
1735099
14 Nov 12 at 9:41 pm
Here you go dumb arse. Didn’t you claim some science background before?
http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm
SteveC
14 Nov 12 at 9:45 pm
Please enlighten us steve of SkS fame.
Was it Broccoli, cauliflower, tomatoes, roses?
Or was it legumes & tubers.
SkS as a reference – aaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha
Carpe Jugulum
14 Nov 12 at 9:45 pm
Erm. Steve?
The ordovician was the period when flora invaded the land. We know there was tremendous seafloor algae matting at the start of it, the seas teemed with phytoplankton which fed zooplankton and a mind-numbing array of marine creatures by the end of it. Nautiloids abounded and equipped with grasping tentacles were effective predators.
Another group of marine predators were the conodonts, known mainly from the tiny fossil teeth they left behind. The few complete fossils that have been found suggest they were finned, eel-like creatures with large eyes for locating prey. The conodonts are now thought to have been true vertebrates. Fish started becoming more widespread in the fossil record. They were small and had downward-pointing, jawless mouths, indicating they lived by sucking and filtering food from the seabed, which was extensively matted with algae, which supported an immense array of soft herbiverous creatures about which little is known except for their tracks. Lampreys and hagfish are these fishes’ living descendants. The archaic sponge reef-dwellers of the Cambrian gave way to bryozoans—tiny, group-living animals that built coral-like structures.
So there was one hell of a lot of plant life, well able to support an immense marine animal biomass.
You did not know any of this, did you?
Mk50 of Brisbane
14 Nov 12 at 9:54 pm
Yep, sure Mr forced redundancy. How is life in your fantasy land?
Carpe Jugulum
14 Nov 12 at 10:02 pm
Anyhoo, it’s been a slice, but we really should stop the thread derailing.
back to the Lying Slapper and how she lied about the ‘Carbon’ (CO2) tax.
A friend from Canberra noted that there’s horror in the Treasury. Apparently, the CO2 tax was supposed to fill a $13-16Bn hole in their wastrel squandermonkey spendathon.
Only the f**ked the entire thing up so royally that the Tax is going to COST over a billion which, all by itself, blows Woine Swon’s ‘surplus’ (actually a deficit which, including the sleight of hand this FY, now tops $25 Bn BEFORE their ‘hole’ is looked at.
Epic fail does not even start to describe it.
These worthless incompetent rock-apes can’t even bring in a new tax that does not cost the taxpayer money!
Is there a word bigger and better than ‘epic’ to describe the scale of this fail??
Mk50 of Brisbane
14 Nov 12 at 10:07 pm
I am just curious what the market is. You will have to buy emission permits or offsets based on your size of your organisation provided that the government does not give you money instead like they did before the scheme started to steel makers. So the likely market outcome is to decrease the size of organisations or stop the growth of individual organisations so they will not hit the limit and turn other industries in expert lobbyists. The legislation has thought of this though with provisions about changing organisational structure to avoid the tax, so in the case of a power station it is best to close it and a new one of sufficiently small size (company and plant) will take its place even if it is less efficient as it will have a lower tax or liability rate. If anyone can tell me the logic behind the tax/ets in Australia let me know.
kelly liddle
14 Nov 12 at 10:18 pm
The real lying slapper
Tiny Dancer
14 Nov 12 at 10:20 pm
“So the fact that the ALP policy platform called for a policy that was actually implemented when the PM said it wouldn’t be is irrelevant?”
The platform mentioned a carbon tax?
Jarrah
14 Nov 12 at 10:24 pm
You’re a bit all over the shop there Mk50. But I guess you were trying to say – sea based plants. Given the lack of land based plants in the Ordovician would you expect the carbon cycle to behave differently?
SteveC
14 Nov 12 at 10:59 pm
Oh, and it’s usually polite to cite your source when you cut and paste, Dr Geographic:
http://science.nationalgeographic.com.au/science/prehistoric-world/ordovician/
SteveC
14 Nov 12 at 11:13 pm
Perhaps you should sternly lecture my brother-in-law and the other thousands who were sacked and tell them that their belief that they no longer have a job and that this situation was forced on them is a fantasy. Perhaps you could tell them to go back to their workplaces and tell their supervisors that they still have a job. The government may not have called them “forced” but the victims, the media and everyone involved did.
You’re the one using weasel words to deny what has been done.
You’re the one living the fantasy.
It’s a familiar theme. I’ve been told that I “volunteered” for service in Vietnam. Total crap. I was never given the choice. It’s a meme favoured by Libertarians when they can’t hack the dissonance implicit in their beliefs. Denial seems to be integral to your belief system.
Every single one of these redundancies was forced.
1735099
15 Nov 12 at 8:06 am
Well numbers, it may well turn out to be a blessing for your family. They can now live in reality. They should be pleased.
Tiny Dancer
15 Nov 12 at 9:11 am
It has nothing to do with my family (Millionaire Accountant, Company manager, Music teacher, successful artist, and General Practioner).
The music teacher is the only one working for the government.
1735099
15 Nov 12 at 9:18 am
Yeah, Steve, I purchased it and have Nat Geo – all of it – on my hdd or on the original CD set. It’s a decent research resource for an historian as it’s a primary source.
Your point is what?
Mk50 of Brisbane
15 Nov 12 at 12:03 pm
My point should have been fairly obvious, as I expicitly said ” it’s usually polite to cite your source when you cut and paste, “. i.e. when you pass off other work as if it was your own. I hope you don’t try that stunt in your thesis. It’s frowned upon in academic circles, you know.
SteveC
15 Nov 12 at 2:53 pm
Amusing that you believe that a conversation on a blog requires full academic rigour, dear Steven.
I look forward to you being an examplar of this approach, which I have not observed of you to date, I might add.
But if that’s the standard you wish me to hold you to, so be it. Happy to oblige.
Mk50 of Brisbane
15 Nov 12 at 3:11 pm
happy for you to point out where i have cut and pasted large chunks of other sources without using the simple block quote function or other indication that I am quoting someone else.
SteveC
15 Nov 12 at 3:28 pm
And on that sad little note, Steve, your not very epic defence of the failed computer models of the AGW cultists ends, does it?
Still un-answered by any Gaia cultist or other greenfilth:
Mk50 of Brisbane
15 Nov 12 at 5:13 pm
here’s the whole article at Skeptical Science, to avoid you conveniently cutting and pasting the bits you like:
You can go to the link to find the referenced papers
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-higher-in-late-Ordovician.htm
SteveC
15 Nov 12 at 5:40 pm