Categories
CO2 Newsletter commentary Guest post

Gus Speth – “the greatest dereliction of civic responsibility in the history of the Republic”

Gus Speth (read more about him here), very kindly wrote this to accompany the release of CO2 Newsletter Vol. 1, no. 5. (his testimony to a US Senate committee, in April 1980, is quoted extensively in it.)

Gus Speth

What does it mean that we knew enough over 50 years ago to begin serious action on climate change, and didn’t?  It certainly does not mean that the issue was forgotten or that the pleas for action were muted or that the problem was too uncertain. I recently wrote a book with MIT Press, They Knew: The U.S. Government’s 50-Year Role in Causing the Climate Crisis (2021), which disposes of those excuses. 

We can see now with some clarity that this failure, which in They Knew I referred to as the greatest dereliction of civic responsibility in the history of the Republic, was due and is still due to the confluence of several problematic factors. 

In the United States, we will never be able to go far enough, or fast enough, doing the right things on climate, as long as our political priorities are ramping up GDP, growing corporate profits, increasing the incomes of the already well-to-do, neglecting the half of America that is just getting by, encouraging unrestrained consumerism, facilitating great bastions of corporate and money power, and helping abroad only modestly or not at all.

These unfortunate factors and forces are all manifestations of a system of political economy that is not suited to today’s needs. Making the needed progress on climate change, and much else, requires an escape from the fetters of today’s system and an urgent transformation to a new—a next—political economy.

Of course, we must use today’s democracy, flawed though it be, to fight efforts seeking to rollback climate protections, to promote rapid deployment of both technology and policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to adapt to changes we cannot forestall. We must do our best in all these regards, but, beginning now, we must also start to build a new democracy that can address the climate crisis here and abroad with the authority needed—a climate-capable democracy.

Building a climate-capable democracy should proceed down two paths. First, today’s political reality cries out for many straightforward pro-democracy reforms. We know a lot about what is needed in this regard, including actions to shore up voting rights, protect election integrity, and otherwise greatly strengthen our democracy’s functioning.

Beyond such measures, however, deeper changes are needed. We need to recognize that democracy depends for its success on a great many factors in the social and economic spheres as well as the political. Consider the following ways our democracy is constrained today.

When economic inequality mocks political equality, democratic progress is difficult. When corporate power dwarfs people power, democratic progress is difficult. When money is the be all and end all of campaign success, democratic progress is difficult. When the voting public is subjected to repeated lies and endless misinformation and propaganda, democratic functioning is difficult. When future generations and the natural world are not accorded political rights, democracy is deprived and unrepresentative.

In short, there is much that must be done, both working within the current system and also building a new one. I am hopeful but by no means confident.

Gus Speth, 2026

Categories
Denial United Kingdom

March 17, 2013 – Daily Mail idiot makes idiotic climate claims 

Nineteen years ago, on this day, March 17th, 2013,

In the four-page version published in the Mail on Sunday on 17 March, he calls climate science the “Great Green Con”. And, when David writes one of his exposés, Carbon Brief like to expose his errors. 

https://storage.googleapis.com/gpuk-archive/blog/climate/mail-fake-cover.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 400ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Daily Mail has been mostly but not entirely, hostile to the idea of carbon dioxide build up. There was this article from 1979 based on a book, World without Trees.

But on the whole, the Daily Mail mostly has derided hippies and anti-capitalists and grant grubbing-scientists. Every so often, they’ll run a story or an editorial to show that they’re somehow “balanced”, but they’re not really fooling anyone

The specific context was that their journalist, if you want to call him that, David Rose, was a reliable repeater of the latest denialist memes and talking points and bullshit to come out of the United States. (and, self-confessedly at the time of the Iraq war, security services disinformation). And so it came to pass here, in 2013 after the Copenhagen failure and ahead of David Cameron saying “cut the green crap.”

In 2013, Media Matters named Rose’s publication, the Daily Mail2013 Climate Change Misinformer of the Year” for its stirring up of “faux controversies about climate science.” In 2014, Greenpeace made an official release noting that David Rose is “not a credible source.”12 13

David Rose – DeSmog

What I think we can learn from this is that there is a conveyor belt of ass-hollering, where denial, half truths and outright lies get washed into newspapers, and then some of it ends up in people’s heads. I am not proposing a hypodermic model;  it is more of an air mist than a hypodermic. 

What happened next The Mail has kept on being awful on climate, alongside the Express, the Sun, the Times and the Telegraph, as per Carbon Brief.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 17, 1976 – UK Weather boss dismisses climate change as “grossly exaggerated”

March 17, 2006 – Rio Tinto says “CCS is key to cutting greenhouse gases.” Oops, then…

March 17, 2007 – Edinburgh #climate action gathering says ‘Now’ the time to act

 March 17, 2014 – Carbon Bus sets off to the North

Categories
CO2 Newsletter

“A sense of urgency was introduced to the CO2-greenhouse problem” -CO2 Newsletter Vol. 1 no. 5

The fifth issue of the CO2 Newsletter, published bi-monthly by American geologist William N. Barbat between 1979 and 1982, is live. You can download a pdf and see the full text here.

The eight page issue has a front page story on testimony by Wally Broecker (famous oceanographer) in July 1979.

A sense of urgency was introduced to the CO2-greenhouse problem July 30, 1979, when Wallace Broecker (Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory) explained to the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, “We have good evidence that during the peak of the last interglacial period, the sea level did indeed stand 6 meters (20 feet) higher than it does now, and we don’t think the temperature of the globe was any more than 1 degree Celsius warmer than now.”

There’s also an editorial, feedback from readers (including people at the UK Climatic Research Unit), excerpts from recent reports and a concluding article “Some Functions and Merits of Energy.

Categories
Australia Coal

March 16, 1988- Coal strategy, no mention of climate

Thirty eight years ago, on this day, March 16th, 1988, a coal industry apparatchik produces a strategy.

Ritchie, J. 1988. Development of a Strategy for the Australian Coal Industry.  Australian Coal Association, paper to the Petroleum & Minerals Review Conference, Canberra, 16 March.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Australian coal industry had been experiencing boom times in the 1980s and became the world’s biggest coal exporter in 1984.

There were still, of course, major problems in terms of modernization of equipment, working practices, infrastructure, all the usual stuff. 

The specific context was. What’s fascinating about this proposed coal strategy does not mention climate change at all, March of 1988. If it had been published a year later, even six months later, it would have had to so.

What I think we can learn from this is that this is like one of those nice little digs into the fossil record, where you can see when the asteroid hit fairly exactly. 

What happened next By the end of 1988 climate change was everywhere thanks to the long, hot summer in the States, James Hansen’s testimony, the Changing Atmosphere conference, but also in Australia, there had been lots of activity. In September of 1987 the Greenhouse Project had been launched. This was a co-production of the CSIRO’s division of atmospheric physics and the “Commission for the Future.” They held an academic conference in 1987 and then connected public conferences in 1988 in November. So that’s really when you can date the coming of the greenhouse issue in Australia.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 16, 1973 –  North Sea Oil for the people?! (Nope)

March 16, 1993 – VAT to be imposed on domestic energy, called a “climate measure”

 March 16, 1994 – “We could bail from Rio” says former Environment Minister

March 16, 1995 – Victorian government plans brown coal exports

Categories
Uncategorized

March 15,  2019 – Met Police film children at climate protest

Seven years ago, on this day, March 15th, 2019,

Police unlawfully spied on children as young as 10 taking part in a climate strike protest in London, documents have shown.

The previously unseen papers reveal the Metropolitan police were rebuked by the information commissioner’s office (ICO) for video surveillance of the March 2019 protest, which was attended by up to 10,000 children and young people.

Ruling the data-gathering unlawful, the watchdog said the force had failed to consider the privacy rights of the children at the protest, and had not considered their entitlement to added data protections in light of their age.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/05/met-police-illegally-filmed-children-as-young-as-10-at-climate-protest

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 411ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was the police are there to protect… the propertied classes and to subdue political dissent. There’s a lot of other window dressing stuff as well. The Met especially, as the biggest police force, leads the way in a lot of this. And ah, and had been harassing community groups, non violent groups, for a long time.

In 1968 the Special Demonstration Squad, aka spy cops. (Though spy cops is broader than that). It sent undercovers in for four or five year deployments not to gather evidence so much but as to demoralise, provoke etc. Which is absolutely what a thriving democracy, where the elites respect the rights of the peasants, behaves like.

The specific context was that in the 1990s – some of us are old enough to remember – it was still iffy for police evidence gatherers to be randomly and routinely gathering video footage at protests and demonstrations..  Now, well, normalised.

What I think we can learn from this is that in late 2018 the climate issue had burst onto the scene again, thanks to the very hot summer, though possibly not so hot by today’s standards, in the UK and Europe, the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on 1.5 degrees. Greta Thunberg had just started, but the main thing in the UK was Extinction Rebellion, co-founded by Roger Hallam and Gail Bradbrook, and they had announced a declaration of rebellion in Parliament Square. And then a month later, they had occupied five bridges in London.

And no one could know how long this wave of protest would last. So the Met were there busy filming everyone, which has various advantages.

One is you get a nice, fat database to crawl through, potentially disobedient people. 

Number two, it intimidates some people. 

Number three, it forces other people angry about it, to spend time and energy combating police overreach, rather than spending that time and energy on pushing corporations and governments to do more on climate change – so it’s a nice little sort of diversion of energy and resources. 

So it’s a win, win win for the cops, they might, at worst, get a rap on the knuckles from some legal busy-bodies, but they can largely ignore that. 

What happened next The police continued filming, of course, and now have facial recognition profiling technology thanks to various dodgy deals with people like Peter Thiel of Palantir.

The techno dystopia is being rolled out, and except for, I don’t know, Liberty and Netpol and a few other groups, everyone else is shrugging their shoulders and doing their best Bart Simpson, “What are you going to do?” imitation, myself included.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

March 15, 1956 – scientist explains climate change to US senators

March 15, 2001 – “First, Direct Observational Evidence Of A Change In The Earth’s Greenhouse Effect Between 1970 And 1997”

March 15, 2002 – GM bails from Global Climate Coalition

March 15, 2019 – New Zealand school strike launched, called off.

Categories
Australia

March 14,  2001 – the Australian Federal Government gifts taxpayer money to gas project

Twenty five years ago, on this day, March 14th, 2001,

The Commonwealth Government has offered Sydney Gas Company N/L research and development grant totalling $4.1 million for a coal gas project that will provide Australia with a major environmentally friendly and clean energy source close to its most populous area, Industry Minister Nick Minchin said today.

The project, funded under the R&D Start Program, will exploit the gas resources trapped in the coal beds in the Sydney Basin. It will result in a supply that could have significant economic benefits for the population base on the Eastern seaboard.

It will also generate export earnings if the technology used can be licensed to other sites around the world where trapped gas has to be extracted at great cost.

The $4.1 million grant offer was made by the Industry Research and Development Board and the Commonwealth Government’s business unit, AusIndustry, which administers the Program.

Senator Minchin said the project, when successful, would see significant amounts of clean coal bed methane gas fed directly into the NSW gas supply system.

“There will undoubtedly be major benefits flowing to the consumers because NSW has the largest potential market and at the moment there is no natural gas production in the State,” Senator Minchin said.

“The 1997 Australian Gas Association demand forecast for the eastern States of Australia shows that natural gas will be Australia’s fastest growing energy source. The coal bed methane project in the Sydney Basin will help Australia meet its domestic demand.

“The cleaner gas would also have an impact on the Kyoto Protocol commitments which seeks world-wide reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”

Anon. 2001. $4.1m commonwealth grant offer for NSW R&D gas project. M2 Presswire.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that after pushing (with violence) the existing populations off the land, Australian settlers (or invaders, from another perspective) set about accumulating wealth from various activities – agriculture and then mining.  But this all requires extraction technologies and infrastructure, none of which is cheap. Individual companies aren’t gonna have deep enough pockets, or the appetite for risk. That’s where the state (i.e. the taxpayer) comes in…

The specific context was that the mining booms for export had really kicked in from the late 1960s.  And the state (taxpayer) had been there every step of the way.

What I think we can learn from this is that all the talk of “free markets” is just public relations and fairy tales for the hard-of-thinking.

What happened next  – the infrastructure keeps getting built, regardless of Labor or LNP in charge.  And the emissions keep climbing. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 14, 1988 – Reagan mouths pieties about international scientific cooperation

March 14, 1997 – Australian senator predicts climate issue will be gone in ten years…

 March 14, 2007 – Top Australian bureaucrat admits “frankly bad” #climate and water policies

 March 14, 2007 – Australian Treasury eyeroll about politicians on #climate, (scoop by Laura Tingle).

Categories
On This Day

On this Day March 13: UK disses the future (1989), Aussie climate advocates try (and fail) (1992), Bush breaks CO2 prime (2001), UNEP minds the Gap (2010 and ACTU talks clean coal (2007) 

In 1988 scientists had said a global 20% cut in emissions was needed by 2005. The UK government, on this day, said “yeah, nah”. 

March 13, 1989  – UK Energy Department shits all over everyone’s future by dissing Toronto Target

In Australia climate activists tried to get the Labor government to be less shit. They failed.

March 13, 1992 – Australian climate advocates try to get government to see sense… (fail, obvs).

Candidate Bush had made promises on the campaign trail. 25 years ago today Vice-President Bush, under President Cheney, broke those promises.

March 13, 2001 – Bush breaks election promise to regulate C02 emissions…

19 years ago, the unions (especially the coal-miners) were talking up “clean coal”, as was Labor leader Kevin Rudd. Happy times.

March 13, 2007 – ACTU talks up “clean coal”

Sixteen years ago, the United Nations Environment Program releases a report on the gap between the promises and what is happening/what is needed. They’re still producing these reports. The gap ain’t getting any smaller.

March 13, 2010 – first UNEP Emissions Gap report

Categories
United States of America

March 12, 1970 – After the Goldrush

On this day, March 12, 1970,

Slides that ✨ shine ✨

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the 60s had happened. Everyone was questioning, well, everyone, a few of the young, were questioning the myths that they’d been brought up on. One of those myths was of painless economic progress that would not damage the planet. By the late 60s, air pollution was getting so bad that this was mocked, and also oil pollution, for example, well, the Torrey Canyon, but also the more consequential Santa Barbara oil spill of January, 1969. LINK

The specific context was that people like Neil Young were just tapping into that sense of menace and danger.

Songs on the album were inspired by a screenplay written by Dean Stockwell and Herb Bermann also titled After the Gold Rush. The screenplay’s plot involves an apocalyptic ecological disaster that washes away the Topanga Canyon hippie community. Stockwell, a lifelong friend of Young, was also part of the Topanga Canyon artist culture of the time. Mutual friend Dennis Hopper encouraged Stockwell to write his own screenplay in wake of Hopper’s success with Easy Rider. Stockwell recalls writing the script:

Dennis very strongly urged me to write a screenplay, and he would get it produced. I came back home to Topanga Canyon and wrote After The Gold Rush. Neil was living in Topanga then too, and a copy of it somehow got to him. He had had writer’s block for months, and his record company was after him. And after he read this screenplay, he wrote the After the Gold Rush album in three weeks.[10]

Young recalls coming in contact with the script in his 2012 memoir Waging Heavy Peace:

When I returned to Topanga, Dean Stockwell came by the house with a screenplay called After the Gold Rush. He had co-written it with Herb Bermann and wanted to know if I could do the music for it. I read the screenplay and kept it around for a while. I was writing a lot of songs at the time, and some of them seemed like they would fit right in with this story. The song “After the Gold Rush” was written to go along with the story’s main character as he carried the tree of life through Topanga Canyon to the ocean. One day Dean brought an executive from Universal Studios to my house to meet me. It looked like the project was going to happen, and I thought it would really be a good movie. It was a little off-the-wall and not a normal type of Hollywood story. I was really into it. Apparently the studio wasn’t, because nothing more ever happened.[11]

After the Gold Rush – Wikipedia

In his 2012 biography Young reportedly gave a different explanation of the song’s origin and meaning, describing the inspiration provided by a screenplay of the same name (never produced), which apocalyptically described the last days of California in a catastrophic flood. The screenplay and song’s title referred to what happened in California, a place that took shape due to the Gold Rush. Young eventually concluded that:

After The Gold Rush is an environmental song… I recognize in it now this thread that goes through a lotta my songs that’s this time-travel thing… When I look out the window, the first thing that comes to my mind is the way this place looked a hundred years ago.[4]

After the Gold Rush (song) – Wikipedia

What I think we can learn from this is that this song is an absolute banger. I listen to it all the time

What happened next  Neil Young is still around!

Neil Young – Wikipedia

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

March 12, 1974 – Clean Coal advert in the Wall Street Journal

 March 12, 1984 – A Conservative MP worries about carbon dioxide build-up 

March 12, 2023 – the opera ain’t over, but the fat lady is warming up

Categories
Australia

March 11, 2001 – Don Burke adverts

Twenty five years ago, on this day, March 11th, 2001,

The Federal Government is spending $3.9 million on an advertising campaign on greenhouse gases featuring celebrity gardener Don Burke, two months after criticism of its $3.6 million ad campaign on the Natural Heritage Trust.

In the ads, on prime-time television and in newspapers, Burke says: “I love greenhouses. Wouldn’t want to live in one, though … and that’s why the Commonwealth Government is doing something about it.”

“They’re investing $200 million a year to lower greenhouse gases. They’re working with over 300 major companies, helping them to clean up their act.”

He goes on to introduce 10 ways Australians can make a difference including turning off the TV at the power point, instead of using the remote, washing clothes in cold water and taking shorter showers.

The Opposition’s environment spokesman, Senator Nick Bolkus, said yesterday the ad campaign was an “outrageous abuse of taxpayers’ money”.

 … The Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office confirmed the full cost of the advertising campaign was $3.9 million, with the ads to run for six weeks.   

2001 Clennell, A. 2001. Pitched Battle Over Don Burke Ads. Sydney Morning Herald, 13 March, p.5.

AND

CELEBRITY green thumb Don Burke yesterday defended his decision to promote the Federal Government’s anti-greenhouse gas policy on television, saying he was no apologist for the Liberals.

The Opposition and the Australian Democrats voiced concern over Mr Burke’s promotion of the Government’s approach to greenhouse problems in a $3.9 million print and broadcast campaign.

But Mr Burke, who did the job free of charge, praised the Government for making a start and said he would also support similar Labor efforts.

“I knew in doing this … the Opposition would come back with various statements. As I say, I’m not an apologist for the Liberal Party.”

Daily Telegraph, March 14, 2001 p20

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Liberal Party had gone into the 1990 federal election with a more ambitious carbon dioxide emissions reduction target than the governing Labor party, but this had not gotten them over the line; they very narrowly lost, and felt that they had been betrayed by green groups, especially the Australian Conservation Foundation. This exacerbated pre-existing suspicions and antipathy to all things environmental. In 1996 the Liberals had come back to power, and new Prime Minister John Howard had made it pretty clear that he had contempt for the issue of climate change and those pushing it. I could go on for days…. 

The specific context was  that thanks to the Millennium drought and so forth, concerns about climate change were growing. And so as an attempt at perception management, Howard had used taxpayer money to do an advertising campaign fronted by then popular TV personality Don Burke, who did gardening shows. 

What I think we can learn from this is that even assholes, or especially assholes, will use public funds to try and fool the public. It’s like that cartoon of the two fat men at the table, and one of them cuts off the tail of the dog nearby and feeds the dog its own tail. It’s actually worse than that, of course. Anyway…

What happened next the Don Burke controversy blew up because Labor and the Democrats (the Democrats still a thing) were not at all happy, and launched parliamentary investigations and so on. The Greens were just becoming a thing by then. 

Burke himself, well, here’s Wikipedia:

He has been an outspoken critic of numerous environmental advocacy groups. From July 2005 to late 2008,[3] Burke was the Chair of the climate-change-denying Australian Environment Foundation.[4]

then revealed to be. Well…

An investigation started when journalist Tracey Spicer announced on Twitter that she was investigating the sexual harassment by powerful men in the Australian entertainment industry. Spicer said, “One name kept recurring – Don Burke”.[8][9] On 26 November 2017, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and The Sydney Morning Herald published a joint investigative piece containing claims that Burke had sexually harassed, sexually assaulted, and bullied women throughout his television career. The report quotes alleged female victims, as well as both female and male witnesses, including David Leckie—the former head of the Nine Network, on which Burke’s programs aired—comparing Burke to American producer Harvey Weinstein.[8] Kate McClymont, Lorna Knowles, Tracey Spicer and Alison Branley received a Walkley Award for their investigation.[10]

Other former Channel Nine executives went “on the record” to comment on the allegations.

Sam Chisholm said, “Don Burke was a disgrace because of his behaviour internally and externally. This precluded him from ever becoming a major star.”[11]

Peter Meakin said, “There was gossip about inappropriate language and he was incredibly demanding. If someone fell short of the mark, he would excoriate them. He was unforgiving.”[11]

In response to the allegations, Burke released a lengthy statement which said he was “deeply hurt and outraged at the false and defamatory claims” and suggested the “baseless” claims were from former employees who “bear grudges against me”. Burke also stated that he has had a “life-long opposition to sexism and misogyny”.[11]

Burke claimed to have self-diagnosed Asperger’s syndrome and, in a media interview[12] following revelations about his alleged misconduct, said that these “genetic failings” were to blame for some of his conduct. In response, Autism Awareness Australia stated that Burke’s claim was “beyond appalling” and “gobsmacking”.[13]

In the following days, many celebrities came forward to recount their observations of Burke’s sexist and offensive behaviour, including Susie O’Neill,[14] Kerri-Anne Kennerley,[15] Di Morrissey, Debra Byrne, Tottie Goldsmith, Amity Dry and Mike Carlton.[16]

Following the interview on A Current Affair,[17] one of the women sued Burke for defamation on the grounds that he said she had lied about the sexual harassment allegation and that she made the false allegation as part of a “witch hunt” during the interview. She lost the case on the grounds that Justice David Mossop did not find Burke’s denial in the interview was credible, so viewers would not conclude that she was a liar or part of a witch hunt, and thus was not defamed.[18][19]

And the emissions kept climbing despite all the advertising campaign bullshit, Howard tried again in 2007 with “climate clever” adverts. But by then, he was toast. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

March 11, 1959 – Warmer Arctic Raising World’s Sea Level…

March 11, 1969 – NASA explains need to monitor C02 build-up to politicians

March 11, 1989 – warm words at The Hague, where the climate criminals should be sent…

March 11, 2008 – Australia’s ratification of Kyoto Protocol comes into effect

Categories
On This Day

On This Day – March 10: Congressional thinking (1988), stupid speech by stupid old powerful man (2010), RIP Sherry Rowland (2012), Florida governor versus reality (2015) 

With the climate issue clearly about to break through, some congressional staffers have a think, organised by some big green campaigning outfits.

March 10, 1988 – Congressional staff (go on a) retreat on Climate

If you want to control, or at least confuse and disinform, then you must control the state broadcaster. So, you put loyal stupid people in powerful positions. They then give stupid speeches. And voila.

March 10, 2010 – ABC chairman gives stupid speech to staff

A great scientist and brave man, who faced prolonged interference in his work because he was right and industry didn’t like it. 

March 10, 2012- RIP Sherry Rowland

When you are six years old or so, you learn that closing your eyes doesn’t mean other people can’t see you – that there is an actual reality. Republican governors get to be five or so their whole wretched lives…

 March 10, 2015 – Florida governor denies banning words “climate change”