As parts of NSW and Queensland are still under floodwater, prominent voices in Australia’s right-wing media and right-wing groups have begun to downplay any link to climate change — if they mention it at all.
Less than a week after the latest damning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report sounded the alarm yet again, climate change denialists in positions of influence have used the same playbook from the Australian bushfires to push back against the scientific consensus showing that freak weather is becoming more frequent and more extreme.
News Corp’s climate change denialist-in-chief Andrew Bolt’s response to the Lismore floods was to list a series of recent climate emergencies — something that seemingly proves the case for an increasingly volatile climate — to argue that they are exploited to promote the idea of climate change: “Here come the vultures again.”
While people are looking at lost homes, livelihoods and lives, Bolt argues that a bumper season for farmers this winter shows that global warming has been brilliant for our farmers. (Australian farmers have been among the best in the world at adjusting to the climate crisis, but this doesn’t mean it’s helping them. Quite the opposite.)
Bolt’s Sky News stablemate Chris Smith also criticised scientists and the media for linking the floods to climate change.
“Well, now we’ve got the climate change warriors using these disasters to blame a warming planet and CO2 emissions. Horrible timing. Yet the greenest of scientists maintain that you simply cannot link climate change to single disasters,” he said.
Smith instead blames the influence of La Niña, the climate pattern that has been made more extreme, according to research by the US’s scientific body, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Sky News host Paul Murray riffed on the same accusation of politicising the climate, going as far to say that Scott Morrison is being “dehumanised” by the criticism.
Another strategy has been to cite historical records of previous floods to argue that they are regular and therefore not a consequence of a changing climate.
Advance Australia, a right-wing advocacy group that pulled $1.3 million in donations in the 2021-21 financial year, delved into Bureau of Meteorology records to claim these floods were actually very normal: “Since the 1890s there have been nine weather stations that have recorded more than a metre of rain over a four-day period (see below).”
According to Facebook, this was shared hundreds of times and had thousands of engagements, making it one of most viral pieces of content about Australia’s floods last week.
Unfortunately their evidence doesn’t quite stack up. Records before the 1900s tend to be less accurate. Of those nine records, four were from the same two-day period in February 1893, five were from before the 20th century, and none were from the past three decades. While there are many factors influencing floods, climate change affects the weather on top of existing variability.
One Nation MPs Malcolm Roberts and Mark Latham both played on this same misinterpretation, citing old records or sharing old photos of floods. Rather than addressing climate change — something that both men deny — Roberts argues instead for dams.
And the response from others on climate change? Silence. News Corp’s Facebook pages for The Australian, The Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun haven’t mentioned climate change in the past week. Sky News Australia’s page mentioned it three times — all to say it wasn’t relevant or isn’t happening.
On Monday the Climate Council noted that Morrison had not mentioned climate change in relation to the weather emergencies.
“And yet there has been no official statement or acknowledgment of the role of worsening climate change in these mega floods by our prime minister, our deputy prime minister or even our minister for emissions reduction. Not a word,” CEO Amanda McKenzie said.
What actually drives Bolt … money, notoriety or just say the opposite for ratings?
Stupidity?
Let’s go with this.
He dropped out of uni. Could not cut it.
Seems to me all three come together in one package. It’s what he’s paid for. He’d be out of a job tomorrow if he switched to talking sense. Maybe he really believes what he says, maybe not, but that’s not really important because he must spout this crap regardless.
As Upton Sinclair put it long ago, ‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.’ And of course that applies to many more than Bolt. Thanks to this ideologically deluded government and its fossil-fuel paymasters there are many in government, in government agencies and in the media equally unable to acknowledge reality. Sinclair is well worth reading; much of what he says about capitalism and its corrupting force in the USA early in the 20th C is equally true here and now.
Yes indeed, SSR, Upton Sinclair is well wotth reading.He was a brilliant wordsmith.One that sticks in my mind is his description of Francisco Franco, the late Spanish dictator.”Ah, Franco, the most efficient little butcher the Devil ever devised”.
I’m less inclined to believe it’s about money for the likes of Bolt and his fellow travellers, and I disagree that he would be unemployable were he to perform a volte-face on climate change. In fact, I think he’d be snapped up almost immediately by a rival media company.
I really do think ideology and tribalism trumps money for these ghouls. They’d sooner give up their house and sacrifice their children than admit the left was right about something, particularly when it’s the single biggest issue facing humanity. Doing so would mean completely losing their identity and admitting that their entire life is a lie.
I did not say he would be unemployable, since I agree with you he could do something else. But I very much doubt anyone would pay him remotely as well or afford him the status he has now if he shifted his position on this issue.
They’d sooner give up their house and sacrifice their children than admit the left was right about something* Like trying to dig religion out of a religious mind.
I believe Bolt sees himself, more than anything, as an iconoclast, hammering away with an awesome ego – which in his mind is confused with intelligence – and ‘free thought’ at the new orthodoxies, or, as many on the right like to say, at ‘leftist group think’. He has a fervid, voracious following of angry, older white men who say about him things like, ‘he says things that really need to be said’, when they come out of their computer dens. I hazard that Bolt sneers at them, despite their adulation.
Allegedly Sinclair’s adage could be applied to the Russian FSB according to a source on their ‘analysis’ advising Putin and his inner circles, hence, suboptimal ‘special operation’ in Ukraine. The source said that we didn’t actually think anyone would take our analysis seriously…. we just ‘ticked boxes’ and protected their backsides….
Excellent quote thank you
I reckon Bolt is paid very handsomely for his lies, but there will be no clear linkage between his pay and the big polluters; that will be paid secretly to Murdoch,Stokes, Costello etc by circuitous routes that could be found by a good ICAC investigator.
Seen Men in Black? …. That Arquillian?
Laziness.
Try again .He has carved out a career in extreme right-wing media spouting right-wing dribble and half truths .
Not sure of the reason for the boting Could have been the use of the word bull shxt or could it be morxn or pandxrs or dribble . If you can see where the words fit please amend your copy. All apply
He is like some men who might be termed believing in what they myopically like to believe; he has some truths in some of the vitriol and grandstanding .. making it a dangerous mix of half truths and manipulation to get a raise… where that “raise” happens is anyones guess!!!
Moloch’s minions blamed arson & exploding cowpats for the 2019 conflagrations so may we assume that they are now searching for wicked greenies cloud seeding with chem. trails or digging holes in levees?
The Moloch’s Minions both in the NewsCorpse Rags, including his vanity publishing arm at The Australian, and The Sky After Dark Comedy Show here in Australia are just megaphones to ensure that he keeps in favour and to a certain extent controls here in Australia, Smirko and the Lying Nasty Party, in the USA, The Orange One and the now GQP and in the UK, with BoJo and what is the original Nasty Party.
There is a need for legislation akin to that in the USA
When Murdoch wanted to control more media in the USA the law required that he become a citizen of the USA…he then did so, therefor is no longer an Australian citizen
Such legislation is needed here in the C of A.
Thinking about The Moloch’s rags brings to mind that old Soviet Joke…
Нет Правды В Правде…Нет Новостей В Известий!
No Truth in Pravda…No News in Izvestia!
Both of which The Moloch* manages to accomplish in NewsCorpse publication with a compounding of lies and propaganda fit for the Soviet era.
*The Moloch became my particular cognomen for Murdoch as the biblical name of a Canaanite god associated with child sacrifice, through fire or war…in this case with the hacking of a dead girl’s mobile in the UK and him and his minions with the gung ho chickenhawk, cheerleading for both The Afghan Imbroglio and The Iraq Fiasco.
“Sky After Dark Schills And Comedians”?
Murdoch’s SADSACs.
That pun is “No news in Pravda, no truth in Izvestia“.
The last time I tried to post it in Russian it was disappeared by the inexplicable madBot.
Yes, or in plain English,”No news in the truth, and no truth in the news”.
Offshore e.g. indie media and citizen journalists are highlighting the many links emerging within the Anglosphere of Fox etc. led media, Trump/GOP, US Koch think tanks (and fossil fuel donors), Tanton network nativism, compromised MPs, crossovers via fossil fuels, EU scepticism, climate science denial etc., and Russian oligarch money (much has been done on Londongrad in past by Private Eye, of late ByLine Times and The New European).
Why have we not heard anything from e.g. Rupert Murdoch (nor Barclay’s/Spectator), Charles Koch, Steve Bannon and the Barclay’s, or their proxies on current events?
Linking action on climate change to communism. That is just….gobsmacking is the politest word that comes to mind. It is very noticeable how often the communism scare card is pulled nowadays. I see comments about things that supposedly sound ‘communist’ on the most unlikely of articles and posts. I guess that’s what they are being told to say.
I think the communism scare is a fairly blind following of where the USA leads. I lived in Viet Nam for almost a decade and it never ceased to amaze me how the word communist could be inserted into any US article on any Vietnamese topic. It was risible – but also contagious in these times of mass ignorance masquerading as a valid stance.
As we get closer to the election the rabbits pulled out of the right-wing supporter’s magicians’ hat will look more ridiculous. The BS we are getting from the big fat liar and the Gold standard liar will make the rabbit from the hat unrecognisable.
The main game is Climate Change and Scott and Clive are deniers .
Bring on the election ,bring on ICAC.
I just hope the Blot Posse find that little Dutch kid that pulled his finger out of that dyke and let all this water in…..
As for “Here come the vultures again” – which carcase have they got their eye on? The desiccating remains of Blot’s denialist cabal? Not much of a feed there.
“Never mind the alluvial deposits of evidence. What about pity?”
I did not post that for fear the madBot would detect lezphobia.
Brisbane had catastrophic floods in 1896, 1974, 2011 and 2022. So in round figures the intervals between the disasters were 80, 40 and 10 years. If you can see a trend in those numbers, congratulations. You are more numerate than Scott Morrison, Barnaby Joyce, Angus Taylor and the clowns on Sky News.
No trend based on 4 data points really Ian.
Just as there is no drying trend in the last 100 years, even though there has been a trend in drying in the last 20 years according to Prof Andy Pitman. Perhaps Andy’s drying trend in the last 20 years has been halted by the 2011 and 2022 floods?
Here is Andy’s actual unguarded opinion and my comments on the aftermath:
On the Drought: Wednesday 19 June, 2019, Sydney Environment Institute (SEI), University of Sydney.
At 1:11:20
Professor Andy Pitman:
“…this may not be what you expect to hear. but as far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought.
That may not be what you read in the newspapers and sometimes hear commented, but there is no reason a priori why climate change should made the landscape more arid. If you look at the Bureau of Meteorology data over the whole of the last one hundred years there’s no trend in data. There is no drying trend.
There’s been a trend in the last twenty years, but there’s been no trend in the last hundred years, and that’s an expression on how variable Australian rainfall climate is. There are in some regions but not in other regions.
So the fundamental problem we have is that we don’t understand what causes droughts. Much more interesting, We don’t know what stops a drought. We know it’s rain, but we don’t know what lines up to create drought breaking rains.”
Since a range of people in the media and elsewhere regularly claim that the current drought is ’caused’ by climate change; how are we to deal with Andy Pitman’s direct contradiction of those claims? Apparently in an interview with the ABC, the word ‘direct’ was added to qualify ‘link’; however the context and totality of the statement still clearly contradicts the claims that climate change ’causes’ drought.
If Andy really meant that climate change DID cause drought or something similar, why preface the statement with ‘this may not be what you expect to hear’ and ‘That may not be what you read in the newspapers and sometimes hear commented’? The intimate nature of those phrases convey the very clear message that Andy Pitman was stating a position contrary to the prevailing zeitgeist that climate change causes drought.
Can it be clearer that the last para: “So the fundamental problem we have is that we don’t understand what causes droughts”.
This is the truth of the intimate group discussion or overheard conversation.
This might be worth requoting:
“There’s been a trend in the last twenty years, but there’s been no trend in the last hundred years, and that’s an expression on how variable Australian rainfall climate is. There are in some regions but not in other regions.”
Repeat after me: “an expression of how variable the Australian rainfall climate is”
Would you please stop repeating the misrepresentation of Andy Pitman, who has explained he has been misrepresented by climate change deniers. Unless you want to continue to prefer your own opinion of Andy Pitman’s views to Andy Pitman’s, you should read his account of that speech. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/oct/25/climate-scientist-says-sky-news-commentators-misrepresented-his-views-on-drought
In that article Pitman said he “couldn’t answer” a question on whether the current drought gripping large areas of south-east Australia had been influenced by climate change.
“But the fact that I can’t establish something does not make it true or false, it just means I can’t establish it.” Scientific research is always moving forward. According to Yale University, scientists can directly link droughts to climate change. Here is Yale University’s explanation of the connection – but no doubt you also know better than Yale University? https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/08/climate-change-and-droughts-whats-the-connection
Would you please stop misrepresenting Andy Pitman’s views. In an interview by the Guardian, and elsewhere, he has stated he was misrepresented by climate change deniers. His view was, as stated by him “he ‘couldn’t answer’ a question on whether the current [2019] drought gripping large areas of south-east Australia had been influenced by climate change. ‘But the fact I can’t establish something doesn’t make it true or false, it just means I can’t establish it.’ ”
Scientific research moves on. Yale University in its Climate News has published a paper showing the connection between climate change and droughts.
I’m not posting the links here because I have already posted them in previous replies to you, and what happens when I post links is my reply gets stuck in moderation for hours or days. However, unless you prefer your own opinion of Andy Pitman’s views to Andy Pitman’s, and your own opinion to Yale University’s, I suggest you read the links I previously gave you.
Climate change is about extreme weather.
By the way, Pitman also said, in that same Guardian interview, that “there were clear links between human-induced climate change and a rise in heatwaves, in frequency of extreme heat, of changes in rainfall, on ocean acidification and sea level rise” and that deep cuts to carbon emissions were necessary. So no help for you there either. Odd really that you are even bringing Pitman up. The only explanation is that you have been baffled by your own BS.
ZaraHarry,
My reply was to Ian Lowe about ‘trends’ in the frequency of floods and its opposite – droughts. Pitman’s meaning cannot be denied regardless of which way they were later ‘explained’.
“His view was, as stated by him “he ‘couldn’t answer’ a question on whether the current [2019] drought gripping large areas of south-east Australia had been influenced by climate change. ‘But the fact I can’t establish something doesn’t make it true or false, it just means I can’t establish it.’ ”
Precisely. He had no evidence to establish that climate change caused droughts. It might or it might not. Correct??
Is not that a walk back from his actual words? “…this may not be what you expect to hear. but as far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought.
That may not be what you read in the newspapers and sometimes hear commented, but there is no reason a priori why climate change should made the landscape more arid. If you look at the Bureau of Meteorology data over the whole of the last one hundred years there’s no trend in data. There is no drying trend.”
Of course its a walk back – he no doubt felt the wrath of the zeitgeist and walked back to “oh I just can’t establish a link so it could be true or false” Yeah right.
This is a precise statement, obviously not what his audience expected to hear: the meaning of which is absolutely clear and was no doubt his honest opinion expressed to a closed group.
“this may not be what you expect to hear. but as far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought.”
So how do the climate change alarmists continually claim that human induced climate change causes droughts – and now it also causes floods!! Why floods if not droughts??
Extreme weather events, with sea levels rising due to greater frequency of such means more water from disappearing ice, drought is less likely than storms, bushfires have also become more frequent, and high temps more often. Why on earth would you bang on about drought?
It is very much a side issue, unless you’re in one.
Because he thinks he has a climate scientist on the run. Yeah right.
It is a slander that scientists change what they say rather than face the wrath of “climate change alarmists”. You have no evidence for this but are simply making up this explanation to suit your own prejudice. What has made climate scientists cautious, but not changed their minds, is the constant death threats, vilification and trolling from climate change deniers. Human induced climate change causes an increase in extreme weather events, including droughts and floods, as has been predicted for decades by the IPCC reports, but I doubt you would be able to understand them.
You have not responded to Yale University’s explanation of how human induced climate change causes droughts. Here it is again, hopefully not held up in moderation. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/08/climate-change-and-droughts-whats-the-connection
I don’t see any ‘walking back’ between:
‘But the fact I can’t establish something doesn’t make it true or false.’
and
‘…but as far as the climate scientists know…’
establishing something as true is synonymous with knowing; there is a lack of absolute certainty in not having been able to establish or know.
But this is, let’s face it, a straw man of yours. The whole point is the global change in climate patterns as the average Earth’s temperature rises. As ice melts and the sea level rises there will also be greater evaporation (and therefore more rainfall) and much more infra-red radiation contributing to the greenhouse effect along with increasing carbon levels. The climate scientists have so far accurately predicted more numerous and more catastrophic natural disasters, but the effects of global warming won’t be experience equally in every region of the globe.
ZaraHarry and Capt Mainwaring
I have close knowledge of fellow applied scientists in senior positions at G8 universities being constrained by risk to their positions and reputations from stating their honest opinions regarding the climate alarmism rife in academia and the zeitgeist. I don’t believe any have had death threats – but career ending can be quite deadly.
As to specifics: You say; “The climate scientists have so far accurately predicted more numerous and more catastrophic natural disasters”.
Which disasters are these? Data from NOAA and the Australian BOM show that there is a slight DECREASE in the number and severity of Atlantic Hurricanes and Tropical Cyclones. I won’t give you links but simply Google “Tropical cyclone trends” and you will find the Oz BOM website chart from 1970 to 2017. Don’t forget that official AGW started in 1975 after the post WW2 cooling trend reversed.
I was reading David Hill’s ‘Convict Colony’ recently and here is an interesting quote from the early1790’s when the colony was just getting started: quote
“Farmers had to contend with a range of natural disasters including the flooding of the Hawkesbury and Nepean rivers. At the Hawkesbury the river suddenly and in a very few hours swelled to a height of 50 feet (15.2m) above its common level. the Govt storehouse was swept away……In addition to flooding the settlers had to adjust to a range of other weather extremes…..including extreme drought and raging bushfires…’The wheat proved little better than straw and the maize was burnt up in the ground for want of rain……the country was now in flames; the wind northerly and parching; and some showers of rain were of no advantage, being immediately taken up by the excessive heat of the sun’.. endquote
Sound familiar 230 years later?? I believe the recent Hawkesbury flood was 13.8m (assuming it was measured above the same common level as the 1790’s).
I call BS. It’s extremely rare for a bona fide scientist to be censored for interpreting science in a contrary manner. There are plenty of differing views on climate change, but the overwhelming opinion worldwide agree to it happening and being caused by humans.
You can call BS to whatever you like – does not change the fact that the quantum of the CO2 effect in the observed warming of about 1.1 deg since 1750 is still a matter of debate. Recent IPCC reports have noted that there is less temperature sensitivity to CO2 than previously thought. Hansen’s original 0.9 W/m2 TOA imbalance from 2005 was reduced by Hansen himself to about 0.6 W/m2 and last time I looked, the number had reduced further to about 0.4 W/m2.
CO2 theory needs to explain how a steadily increasing concentration of over 400ppm in the atmosphere is consistent with a reducing energy imbalance at TOA. Noting of course that the TOA imbalance can only be measured in any half accurate way by increasing ocean heat content OHC using Argo which is post 2004-5 and is far from perfect.
I’m not arguing the veracity of climate change with you. I call BS that scientists are in danger of losing their jobs at top universities merely because of differing views.
Until you actually know something about AGW what you have to say about it is of no value and little interest. “Don’t forget that official AGW started in 1975 after the post WW2 cooling trend reversed” – good grief, what nonsense. I have answered enough of your BS and will not bother further.
You might have a short memory ZaraHarry, but in the mid 1970’s, scientists were predicting another ice age and catastrophic cooling. I notice you don’t engage on any of the facts I have quoted such as the NOAA Hurricane and BOM Cyclone data, the IPCC reports noting less sensitivity of atmospheric temperatures to CO2 (AR5), and the reducing energy imbalance at TOA. I actually know quite a lot about climate science, having done a lot more than the 10000 hours touted for ‘expertise’ in a subject.
50 years ago there were many theories. That’s the thing about science and research, it never stands still. But some people do…
You have a selective memory and defective research. In the 1970s, there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. The media found the ice age predictions more exciting and gave them more publicity. The problem with your data is it is cherry picked. Your conviction that you know a lot quite a lot about climate science is due to false confidence based on ignorance – you are actually at the peak of Mount Stupid on the Dunning-Kruger curve. You haven’t engaged with any of the scientific papers I referred you to and I suspect you either haven’t read or haven’t understood them. The IPCC reports warn us we are facing catastrophic warming unless we urgently slash emissions and stop burning fossil fuels. If you had read the IPCC reports you would know they warn we are facing a human-induced climate change catastrophe. I suspect your 10,000 hours have been spent on climate change denial sites.
You must be reading different IPCC reports ZaraHarry.
You think my quoting the DECREASING TREND of Hurricane and Tropical Cyclone data from NOAA and Oz BOM is ‘cherrypicking’ when the topic was catastrophic weather events? Does not your climate science predict an INCREASING TREND in same events?
Scientists come in all flavours: 2005 Tim “even the rain that falls will not fill our dams” Flannery, 2019 Andy “you won’t read this in the newspapers” Pitman and 2018 Graham “i will probably get into trouble for saying this” Farquhar.
Go and read the IPCC AR5 and AR6 and look at the climate predictions for which the IPCC has ‘low confidence’.
“Reply to ZaraHarry” is actually reply to you, Borkov.
None of the scientific bodies you refer to – NOAA, BOM or the IPCC – agree with you. All accept that human-induced climate change is a fact and causes catastrophes, as you would know if you visited those sites and checked what they have to say about it. Direct quote from NOAA: “Climate change is already impacting human health. Changes in weather and climate patterns can put lives at risk. Heat is one of the most deadly weather phenomena. As ocean temperatures rise, hurricanes are getting stronger and wetter, which can cause direct and indirect deaths. Dry conditions lead to more wildfires, which bring many health risks. Higher incidences of flooding can lead to the spread of waterborne diseases, injuries, and chemical hazards.”
Direct quotes from IPCC AR6: “SPM.B.1 Human-induced climate change, including more frequent and intense extreme events, has caused widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people, beyond natural climate variability.” “TS.B.2 Widespread and severe loss and damage to human and natural systems are being driven by human-induced climate changes increasing the frequency and/or intensity and/or duration of extreme weather events, including droughts, wildfires, terrestrial and marine heatwaves, cyclones (high confidence), and flood (low confidence). Extremes are surpassing the resilience of some ecological and human systems, and challenging the adaptation capacities of others, including impacts with irreversible consequences (high confidence).”
I agree we are reading different IPCC reports. I read the IPCC reports, whereas you read quibbles about it picked up from denial sites. I really can’t be bothered to deal with your “facts”, which are cherry picked and are either irrelevant in that they don’t alter the overall picture, are misunderstood, or simply made up, like the laughable “post WW2 cooling period” any longer.
High confidence in cyclones and low confidence in floods? That makes sense.
Troublesome facts are different from alarmist predictions. The real world is NOT fitting the predictions.
You keep ignoring the NOAA and BOM data (1970-2017) which shows that both hurricanes and cyclones are NOT getting more frequent or severe (stronger and wetter).
Less people in the world are dying annually from natural disasters than ever before. Cold kills many more people that heat.
World grain production has reached record highs. If 1.1 deg of warming and 420ppm CO2 results in record food production, then is 1.5 deg by 2050 (maybe) and more CO2 really going to be a catastrophe?
Yeah, yeah, with your nitpicking, made-up factoids, and determination to ignore the main picture, you’ve finally managed to convince me that you know better about human-induced climate change than the thousands of qualified scientists who have spent their careers researching it, better than every University, better than every single national and international scientific body – oh wait, no you haven’t. You are just a very, very thick brick wall and I refuse to bash my head against it any further. End of conversation.
Oh here we go. The old ‘scientists were predicting another ice age’ nonsense. The fact that you trot that out tends to indicate that you don’t have any links to anyone in any university. The cooling of the climate for certain periods of time has been discussed as part of some models, and still is. In fact, we can see it happening in winters in Europe and North America. It was predicted that it would happen due to the melting of glaciers and icebergs, and the subsequent inflow of extremely cold water into gulf streams that have an effect on weather. The media in the mid 70s to late 80s undoubtedly exaggerated for effect. If you go back and read some old New Scientists or American Scientific you’ll see what they were really saying.
Not droughts, not floods, not fires CLIMATE CHANGE
Why put explain in scare quotes, as if it is somehow dubious that it was. He explained it. You clearly prefer the reasoning of Sky News to that of the actual person being quoted. You have no credibility.