Category: United States of America

Categories
United States of America

June 10, 2005 – Fossil fuel lobbyist/censor in the White House resigns, gets job with Exxon

Twenty one years ago, on this day, June 10th, 2005, Phil Cooney resigns as chief of staff of Council on Environmental Quality

Cooney joined the George W. Bush administration when he was appointed chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality. On June 10, 2005, Cooney announced his resignation, two days after the story of his tampering with scientific reports broke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Cooney

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context for this was that from the mid-late 1970s Exxon had been looking at carbon dioxide build up, and they had formed relationships with people like Wally Broecker, the famed oceanographer. And there’s an entire website called “Exxon Knew” which is where you can download documents released during court cases which show that Exxon’s scientists were warning the executives of the dangers ahead and indeed. Exxon’s predictions of what CO2 concentrations would be and what temperatures would be were remarkably accurate. However, in the mid 1980s Exxon made a conscious choice that they would resist climate action because it would hurt their profits, and so they then funded various climate denialist groups, became a founding  member of the Global Climate Coalition, which successfully scuppered climate action between 1989 and 2002.

The specific context was that George W. Bush was in the White House for a second term, and he had won this one fair and square (Well, no, he had swiftboated John Kerry, but he hadn’t needed his supreme court justice mates who’d been appointed by his dad to hand him the election the way they had in 2000). Anyhoos, a scandal had broken because it was obvious that the Council on Environmental Quality, which had been set up in 1970 under Nixon to provide environment advice, was soft-pedalling and watering down warnings from actual scientists. Somebody had leaked it and Cooney had then resigned.

What I think we can learn is this: the assholes try to cover all the bases. They usually succeed.

What happened next: Exxon continued to be assholes. The following year, the Royal Society took the quite unusual step of issuing a public letter to Exxon asking them to stop funding climate denial. Exxon didn’t. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 10, 1961 – Nature report on “Solar Variations, Climatic Change and Related Geophysical Problems” 

June 10, 1966 – Seaborg’s commencement address 

June 10, 1986 – scientist tells US senators “global warming is inevitable. It is only a question of the magnitude and the timing.” 

 June 10, 2015 – Abbott and Jones versus windfarms 

June 10, 2019 – a booming market for hydrogen….

Categories
United States of America

June 9, 1979 – New York Times covers climate change – “Increase of Carbon Dioxide in Air Alarms Scientists”

Forty seven years ago, on this day, June 9th, 1979, the Grey Lady made herself useful… 

Increase of Carbon Dioxide in Air Alarms Scientists – The New York Times

  • By Philip Shabecoff; Special to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, June 8 — It is invisible, odorless and poses no immediate threat to human health. Government policies to combat air pollution ignore it completely: But the rapid increase of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere is arousing growing alarm among scientists and environmentalists and could impede this country’s efforts to solve its energy problems.

Carbon dioxide, or CO2, is a gas released by the burning of fossil fuels. Burning oil produces carbon dioxide, and burning coal produces even more. Unlike other gases released into the air by combustion, such as sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxide, or dust particles, it does not make people sick or reduce visibility.

The Government, therefore, has not regarded carbon dioxide as a pollutant and, aside from one small research operation in the Department of Energy, has not paid any attention to it.

Concerned for 20 Years

But that research office recently issued an interim report that stated, “It is the sense of the scientific community that carbon dioxide from unrestrained combustion of fossil fuels is potentially the most important environmental issue facing mankind.”

Scientists have been concerned with the increasing carbon dioxide in the air for the last 20 years. But in the absence of any hard evidence about the consequences of its presence, the issue was more for speculation and the Sunday supplements than for Governmental action.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 336ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context for this was that the New York Times had been reporting intermittently carbon dioxide buildup since 1953 under then reporter Waldemar Kaempfert, and had picked up the wire service report in 1955 of the GE scientist John Hutton giving testimony. This reporter, Walter Sullivan, was pretty famous. He’d written a book about the International Geophysical Year and was fully aware of carbon dioxide build up. In 1972 he had met Stephen Schneider, and presumably the two had stayed in touch. And here we are. 

The specific context was that by this stage, the Department of Energy, I think, from when it was still called the ERDA had been holding conferences and to a lesser extent, releasing reports about carbon dioxide build up. (That reluctance to release reports had been the final spur for William Barbat, btw.)

What I think we can learn is this: Really by the late 1970s this issue of CO2 build up was not controversial in that people admitted it was happening and that it could cause problems. There wasn’t really, yet an active, coherent denialist lobby. 

What happened next: In August of 1981 Sullivan wrote up a study led by James Hansen, it was front page news in the New York Times, and it had two interesting consequences. One is that the New York Times editorialised on CO2 to build up, and the other that Hansen found his funding withdrawn for a grant that had already been issued. That was how the Reagan administration did things. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 9, 1966 – Lovelock’s report 

June 9, 1967 – New York Times reports on temperature drop… 

June 9, 1989 – the Australian Labor Party versus the unions versus the planet #climate 

June 9, 2005 – Capitalism asks G8 leaders to save the world

June 9, 2010 – Gina’s protest 

Categories
United States of America Weather modification

June 8, 1953 – two tornadoes and atomic testing… 

Seventy three years ago, on this day, June 8th, 

“Flint-Worcester Tornado Outbreak Sequence.” On 8 and 9 June 1953, two of the deadliest tornadoes in US history destroyed their eponymous towns in Michigan and Massachusetts. 

https://www.environmentandsociety.org/arcadia/tornado-was-not-bombs-child-politics-extreme-weather-age-atmospheric-nuclear-weapons-testing

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 313ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context for this was that after World War Two, with its enormous technological advances, including atomic bombs, but also jet engine development, radar, sonar, you name it, the idea that you could control the weather was becoming plausible. In 1946 there had been a secret meeting about weather modification (that, two days later, had ended up on the front page of The New York Times). And there was all sorts of talk about deliberately melting ice caps, etc, etc. There was huge public alarm at atomic bombs and also hydrogen bombs, which were a thing by this stage. 

The specific context was that there had been atmospheric atomic bomb tests in New Mexico, a week earlier, and now these two tornadoes. People took the boffins at their word and said that it was possible to influence the weather. 

What I think we can learn is this: your rhetoric of control will be heard, and then you will be held responsible or blamed for stuff that you actually didn’t do, couldn’t have done. 

What happened next: There was an attempt to hold hearings about possible influences of the atomic bombs. This attempt to hold hearings was defeated, but the scepticism and the concern about where the control continued.

“Growing demands that the AEC be held accountable for the disaster prompted a Massachusetts congressional representative, Edith Rogers, to file a resolution calling for a congressional inquiry. The House Committee on Armed Services held a hearing to consider Rogers’s motion on 23 June [1953], in which statements from all the branches of the Armed Forces, the Federal Civil Defense Agency, and USWB unanimously agreed that there was no connection between the two. The committee denied the motion.” https://www.environmentandsociety.org/arcadia/tornado-was-not-bombs-child-politics-extreme-weather-age-atmospheric-nuclear-weapons-testing

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

May 28, 1954 – Will we control the weather?!

December 9, 1955 – Tribune writes on carbon dioxide and Weather Control

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury dismisses carbon dioxide build-up. Yes, 1973. – All Our Yesterdays

June 8, 1981- “the First Detection of Carbon Dioxide Effect” workshop begins – All Our Yesterdays

June 8, 1990 – Greenpeace versus the polluters – All Our Yesterdays

June 8, 1997 – US oil and gas versus Kyoto Protocol, planet – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Science United States of America

June 6, 1957 – CO2 build up studied by Charles David Keeling

On this day, June 6th, 1957, Charles Keeling submits a paper.

Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta Volume 13, Issue 4, 1958, Pages 322-334 Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 

The concentration and isotopic abundances of atmospheric carbon dioxide in rural areas 

Charles D Keeling ∗ Division of Geological Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California U.S.A. Received 6 June 1957,   https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(58)90033-4 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 313ppm.  As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context for this was that after World War Two, it became possible to study the world with more precision and broader scope, thanks to radar, sonar, jet engines etc.

The specific context was that in 1950 the idea of an International Geophysical Year was proposed. And also by the mid 50s, people like Gilbert place, Charles Keeling, Roger Revelle and the Swedes, Ericsson and Rossby and so forth, were talking about carbon dioxide build up as a possible influence on the atmosphere, and this submission of this paper is part of that context. 

What I think we can learn is this: by the mid-late 50s, it was obvious that CO2 was indeed building up and that some people could foresee that there might be serious trouble ahead. 

What happened next: 

Four months after this, Sputnik was launched…

Roger Revelle was able to shake the money tree and get funding for measurement of carbon dioxide build-up, with stations in Hawaii and Antarctica (it was not necessarily expected that global levels would be increasing).

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

May 20, 1960 – Spengler suggests decline of the … whole shebang – All Our Yesterdays 

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 6, 1977 – German scientist Hermann Flohn asks “Whither the Atmosphere and the Earth’s climate?” – All Our Yesterdays

June 6, 1978 – Exxon presentation about carbon dioxide build-up

June 6, 1988 – Scientists say we are entering a new phase

Categories
Activism United States of America

May 29, 2025 – Daughter sues Exxon for mother’s heat death

One year ago, on this day, May 29th, 2025,

May 29 2025 case filed against Exxon etc by daughter of woman who died of hyperthermia in 2021 heat dome – https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2025/20250529_docket-25-2-15986-8-SEA_complaint.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 427ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that from the late 70s, Exxon was well aware of the carbon dioxide threat, and had even helped oceanographers take samples of CO2 on their oil tankers, and had made many predictions and presentations for the C suite. But Exxon decided in the mid 1980s that it would change its stance on the reality of carbon dioxide build up, and it became one of the chief proponents and funders of outfits like the Global Climate Coalition, established in 1989 to resist both domestic US and international climate policy. And Exxon also funded various denialist groups, so much so that in 2006 the UK Royal Society had published an open letter asking them to knock it off. 

Exxon was also instrumental in the Dubya Bush White House 2001 to 2008 especially with their apparatchik in the CEQ writing climate policy and spreading denial.   

The specific context was that we’re now getting the long predicted weather anomalies, disasters sometimes happening much sooner than the scientists had thought, because, well, that’s nonlinear patterns for you. And what do you do when you’ve been hit by one of these well, you sue, if you can. You use court to try and do what the politics hasn’t been able to do. 

What I think we can learn from this is that most court cases fail, but that doesn’t mean you don’t use it as one of your venues for seeking justice, I guess. 

What happened next. 

On April 9 this year –

State Court in Washington Denied Fossil Fuel Defendants’ Request to Stay Case Pending Supreme Court’s Resolution of Boulder

Defendants’ motion to stay proceedings denied.

A trial court in Washington State denied fossil fuel industry defendants’ motion to stay proceedings pending the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. The Washington trial court found that the outcome of the Boulder proceedings was “far from certain,” including whether the Court would issue a substantive ruling and whether the Court would resolve the issues in this case. The court also found that a potentially 14-month stay could prejudice the plaintiff’s ability to conduct discovery, that the public interest weighed against the stay, and that potential prejudice to the defendants was mitigated by the fact that some documents had already been preserved and some discovery had already been conducted in other similar cases.

https://www.climatecasechart.com/collections/leon-v-exxon-mobil-corp_b93f

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: 

May 29, 1968 – UN body says “let’s have a conference, maybe?”- 

May 29, 1969 – “A Chemist Thinks about the Future” #Keeling #KeelingCurve

May 29, 1989- “We will all be flooded” –

May 29, 1992- ANAO says it will look at DPIE’s energy management programme 

May 29, 2007 “Climate Clever” ad campaign in attempt to save John Howard – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Deforestation United States of America

May 26, 1977  – “Forest loss poses threat to Earth” (Do bears shit in those forests?)

Forty eight years ago, on this day, May 26th, 1977, The Grand Island Independent (Nebraska) runs a a story on p34, “Forest Loss Poses threat to Earth”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 333ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that by the mid-1970s various types of scientists were beginning to look at atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up and go ‘uh oh’. There was a side debate about whether the carbon dioxide problem was down to fossil fuels or fossil fuels and other issues (deforestation).

What I think we can learn from this is that we have had fifty years of this stuff. And we just keep making things worse. Because we are not that smart. And we think we can dump the costs on other people/species. 

What happened next. We dumped the costs on other generations, until it was us.

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: 

May 26, 1978 – “Advisory Group on Climate” meeting

May 26, 1990 – Times front page about Thatcher going for stabilisation target – All Our Yesterdays

May 26, 1993 – more “green jobs” mush

May 26, 1994 – Australian #climate stance “will become increasingly devoid of substance” says Liberal politician. Oh yes

Categories
Carbon Dioxide Removal technosalvationism United States of America

May 23, 2023 JPMorgan Chase and Climeworks CDR agreement

Three years ago, on this day, May 23rd, 

“JPMorgan Chase and Climeworks landmark CDR agreement heralds new standard in voluntary carbon market for direct air capture”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that with the failure to use existing technologies like nuclear and renewables to reduce carbon emissions, we are now in such deep shit that we’re having to invent, and take seriously, fantasy technologies like Direct Air Capture.

The specific context was that direct air capture has been having a “moment” for the last few years. Reality is setting in, but you get these hysterical announcements about market making and investment and you’re supposed to take it seriously. But what we learn is that carbon dioxide removals is the emperor’s new clothes. It’s a farce. 

What I think we can learn from this. Any crap gets believed in, if it is convenient. Bearded sky gods, Direct Air Capture, you name it. 

What happened next.  I haven’t been able to find anything more recent than 2024. Maybe the money is still ‘there’. But, you know these agreements, they last for a couple of years, and then they get quietly dropped, and another agreement comes along. 

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: 

May 23, 1977 – President Carter announces Global 2000 report… or “Let’s all meet up in the Global2000”

May 23, 1980 – Aussie senator alerts colleagues to #climate threat. Shoulder shrugs all round. #auspol

May 23, 2000 – Deputy Prime Minister versus Greenhouse Trigger – All Our Yesterdays

May 23, 2006 – David Attenborough finally comes out on climate 

May 23, 2012 – wicked problems and super-wicked problems all around…

Categories
United States of America

May 22, 1979 – Frank Press asks NAS to look into climate change. …

Forty seven years ago, on this day, May 22nd, 1979,

President Carter’s chief scientific adviser Frank Press requests NAS to look at CO2

[following MacDonald and Pomerance] Finally, weeks later, MacDonald called to tell him that Press had taken up the issue. On May 22, Press wrote a letter to the president of the National Academy of Sciences requesting a full assessment of the carbon-dioxide issue. Jule Charney, the father of modern meteorology, would gather the nation’s top oceanographers, atmospheric scientists and climate modelers to judge whether MacDonald’s alarm was justified — whether the world was, in fact, headed to cataclysm.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 3xxppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that from the mid 1970s, various scientists in the United States – we’re talking Gordon MacDonald, Alvin Weinberg, Roger Revelle, perhaps a few others – had been able to lobby the ERDA to start taking climate change seriously and put pressure on the higher-ups in the science establishment in the United States, especially President Carter’s Chief Scientific Advisor, Frank Press. And Press, on this day, asked the National Academy of Sciences to have a look at the issue with new eyes to see if the fears of the carbon dioxide action advocates were fair and justified. 

The specific context was that Chief scientists understandably want to make sure a problem they are being told about is actually a problem, before they go to their political pay masters with it. That’s fair and legitimate. 

What I think we can learn from this. That for all reasonable circumstances, we knew enough by the late 1970s to be taking action.

What happened next. The NAS did the study. This was the Charney report, and it said, “yeah, if we keep tipping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere there’s absolutely no reason not to believe that the temperature will go up significantly and that will cause a world of pain” and Press clearly didn’t like that, didn’t think it should be something on Carter’s agenda, especially in the following year, which was an election year. 

Frank Press died 2020 – a life of magnitude https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2004812117

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: 

May 22, 1972 – Horizon doco “Do you Dig National Parks?” – All Our Yesterdays

May 22, 1989 – Greenhouse plebiscite mooted

May 22, 2007 – “Clean coal” power station by 2014, honest…

May 22, 2000 – Industry versus the greenhouse trigger

May 22 – Build Back Biodiversity: International Biodiversity Day

Categories
United States of America

May 19, 1967 – Debate on Pollution, Rockefeller University with Barry Commoner, Rene Dubois, Athlene Spilhaus

Fifty nine years ago, on this day, May 19th, 1967,

Debate on Environmental Pollution, Rockefeller University, New York, Barry Commoner, Rene Dubois, Athlene Spilhaus.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the pollution issue is beginning to break through beyond simply air pollution in cities. People are beginning to think about the long term, longer term implications. This is partly due to the fact that you’ve had books like Silent Spring published in 1963 based on the 1962 New Yorker articles and a flurry of other books. So you have three interesting people here talking at Rockefeller University in New York, and one of them is Spilhaus, who had studied under Roger Revelle, and whose cartoons about science had appeared in newspapers around the United States, including the greenhouse cartoon in 1958 Spilhaus was well aware of the dangers of carbon dioxide buildup.  Commoner’s book Science and Survival had come out the previous year and it had also had a section on carbon dioxide build-up…

The specific context was that the Vietnam War was raging, the ‘hippies’ were protesting etc.

What I think we can learn from this intellectuals had been saying what was at stake for a very long time. The problem with intellectuals, well, there are many, but one of them is they’re not very good at helping social movements think through the implications of those social movements’ current strategies for maintaining hope or momentum or whatever, and how those strategies might hinder the growth and expansion of the social movement framing.

No one particularly is; I could give it a go, but I’m too idle and dispirited. 

What happened next.  Commoner ran for President in 1980.

The emissions kept climbing.
Btw, if you’re reading this in the US and can get hold of  a recording and transcript, that’d be ace – would be fascinating to know if carbon dioxide build-up came up… 

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: 

May 19, 1937 – Guy Callendar’s carbon dioxide warning lands on someone’s desk

May 19, 1957 – LA Times asks “Is your smoke helping to melt polar icecaps?” – All Our Yesterdays

May 19, 1982 – House of Lords debate on “Coal and the Environment” 

May 19, 1993 – President Clinton begins to lose the BTU battle…

May 19, 1997 – an oil company defects from the denialists. Sort of.

May 19, 1997 – BP boss says “If we are to take responsibility for the future of our planet, then it falls to us to begin to take precautionary action now.”

Categories
United States of America

May 14, 1972 – An Observer journo is “funny” on climate…

Fifty four years ago, on this day, May 14th, 1972, American journalist John Crosby was making fun of ecology. Smart fella.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Crosby had been a big deal in the US, before moving to the UK in the 60s. He’d fronted one of those ‘harrumph, the green freaks are wrong’ documentaries, that I should write about some day.

The specific context was that the Limits to Growth report had come out, the Stockholm Conference was coming up, and harrumphing was what Sensible People were doing. It is always “punch a hippy” day, isn’t it?

What I think we can learn from this. To hell with these assholes.

What happened next. The harrumphing continued. The old white men could never admit they were wrong – their world would implode. As to the actual world burning, well, what of it?

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: 

May 14, 1979 – The greenhouse effect is … “almost common knowledge” – All Our Yesterdays

May 14, 2007 – another C40 large cities summit – All Our Yesterdays

May 14, 2002 – well-connected denialists gather in Washington DC to spout #climate nonsense

May 14, 2009 – First bite at the CPRS apple

May 14, 2010 – a day of action/mourning on climate