Categories
United States of America

August 7, 1933 – Elinor Ostrom born

Ninety-two years ago, on this day, August 7th, 1933 Elinor Olstrom was born.

Elinor Claire “Lin” Ostrom (née Awan; August 7, 1933 – June 12, 2012) was an American political scientist and political economist[1][2][3] whose work was associated with New Institutional Economics and the resurgence of political economy.[4] In 2009, she was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for her “analysis of economic governance, especially the commons“, which she shared with Oliver E. Williamson; she was the first woman to win the prize.[5]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 308ppm. As of 2025, 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.

What I think we can learn from Ostrom. Governance of common goods (it IS possible, it has been done). Garrett “Tragedy of the Commons” Hardin was not merely extremely racist but extremely racist and wrong.

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: 

August 7, 1979 – Cabinet Office wonk hopes to pacify greenies

August 7, 1995 – decent Australian journo reports on utter bullshit #climate economic “modelling”

August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Categories
Australia

August 7, 2007 – Cate Blanchett asks “Who on Earth Cares”

Eighteen years ago, on this day, August 7th, 2007, 

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) launched a new campaign – Who On Earth Cares – with Cate Blanchett as its ambassador, aiming to provide online community spaces for people to show they care about climate change in Australia, and who want to see Australia reduce its greenhouse pollution.

Cate Blanchett and Don Henry on Sunrise

https://www.treehugger.com/culture/who-on-earth-cares-cate-blanchett-does.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. As of 2025, 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 was that the ACF had been aware of carbon dioxide build-up as a Real Problem since the early 1980s, but only began campaigning on it in the late 1980s (for very understandable reasons). They’d done really good work (within the confines of what is ‘possible’) in the late 1980s and early 1990s. But the times change – the Liberals decided they’d been “betrayed” and Labor began to resent the rise of the Greens.

The specific context was that in late 2006 the climate issue had exploded onto the scene in Australia, and ACF hoped to develop pressure around this, especially as there was an election coming up…

What I think we can learn from this – there are waves of attention and inattention. During a wave you might get some promises of action. Whether you get action once the inattention kicks in depends on what kind of infrastructure of monitoring and pressure you have (or haven’t) built.

What happened next – Blanchett also, in 2011, fronted some adverts in support of Gillard’s carbon price – the “Say Yes” campaign. This, predictably, earned her the moniker “Carbon Cate” from the Murdoch press.

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: 

August 7, 1979 – Cabinet Office wonk hopes to pacify greenies

August 7, 1995 – decent Australian journo reports on utter bullshit #climate economic “modelling”

August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Categories
Australia

August 7, 1991 – “Draft Ecology Plans released”

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 7th, 1991, the backlash against “greenhouse” and ecology action stepped up a gear.

The price of petrol would rise sharply under sweeping proposals for ecologically sustainable development revealed yesterday by a Government taskforce.

The ambitious plan to make industry sustainable by avoiding the overuse of resources was commissioned by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke.

The ecologically sustainable development working groups, which are writing policies for nine industries, released draft reports yesterday and called for public comment.

1991 Peake, R. 1991. Draft Ecology Plans Released. The Age, 8 August, p.15.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. As of 2025, 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 was that there had been an upsurge in concern about environmental issues in the late 1960s, and the Federal Government had responded with the usual mix of new organisations (including a Minister for the Environment) and fine words. Everything had more or less died down/become predictable for a long time, until the late 1980s. In order to keep green groups onside for the Federal Election of March 1990 (it was going to be tight) the Hawke government had promised an “ecologically sustainable development policy process.”

The specific context was that the ESD had been a ‘success’ – in that the arguments for the status quo/no action had been exposed as lazy and half-baked. The problem was, the bureaucrats were in the wings, waiting to water down proposals, and feed tame journalists scare stories…

What I think we can learn from this is that we don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell. The same mechanisms are in place now, with an extra 80ppm in the atmosphere since then.

What happened next – Hawke was toppled by Paul Keating, who killed off all the green crap the way a lion kills another lion’s cubs when he acquires a new lioness. And the emissions kept 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.

Also on this day: 

August 7, 1979 – Cabinet Office wonk hopes to pacify greenies

August 7, 1995 – decent Australian journo reports on utter bullshit #climate economic “modelling”

August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Categories
United States of America

August 6, 2009 – Governor Paterson versus the Greenhouse Effect

Sixteen years ago, on this day, August 6th, 2009, 

New York Governor Paterson Sets Greenhouse Gas Targets, Planning Requirements

Executive Order Sets Goal of Reducing Emissions 80 Percent by 2050 and Requires Comprehensive Climate Action Plan

On August 6th, Governor David A. Paterson signed Executive Order No. 24 setting a goal to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This target is consistent with President Obama’s GHG reduction goals and the targets established in the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on June 29, 2009, as well as bills currently being debated in the U.S. Senate. It is also consistent with long-term recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 387ppm. As of 2025, 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 was that governors had been pushing climate action during the “Dubya” Bush administrations, when the Federal government was doing less than nothing. And there were executive announcements and so forth stretching back to the late 1980s – see this one from New Jersey’s governor in 1989.

The specific context was that the Copenhagen “last chance to save the earth” conference was coming up in December.

What I think we can learn from this is that talk is cheap.

What happened next. I don’t know if New York a) produced a plan and then b) did anything to make it happen. I have my doubts about 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.

References

Salkin, P. E. (2014). The Executive and the Environment: A Look at the Last Five Governors in New York. Pace Envtl. L. Rev., 31, 705.

Also on this day: 

August 6, 1945 – Hiroshima

August 6, 1990 – another climate documentary shown…

August 6, 1992 – Australian environmentalists and businesses united… in disgust at Federal bureaucrats #auspol #climate

Categories
Academia Activism Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation

August 5, 1997 – “Climate Change Policies in Australia” briefing

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, August 5th, 1997 – Clive Hamilton, founder of the Australia Institute,

“Climate Change Policies in Australia: A briefing to a meeting of the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate”, Bonn, Germany, 5th August 1997

The Government’s position has been bolstered by economic modelling analysis that purports to show that Australia would be especially hard hit. It is projected that wages in Australia will be 19% lower by 2020 under a scenario that reduces emissions by 10% below 1990 levels in 2020. It is also claimed that the economic cost for each Australian would be 22 times higher than for each European. These extraordinary claims have been challenged by many experts including 131 Australian academic economists who signed a statement declaring that policies are available to slow climate change without harming employment or living standards in Australia.
It is also apparent that the modelling results have been presented in ways that are highly misleading. Despite the fact that the model is constructed in a way that exaggerates the impact of emissions reductions on the Australian economy, the results actually show that the impact would be extremely small.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm. As of 2025, 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 was that the UNFCCC had been agreed in 1992, but the text did NOT include targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries. Why not? Because UNCLE SAM SAID SO THAT’S WHY NOT YOU PINKO TREE-HUGGER.

(i.e. the people around George Bush Snr defeated the “pro-action” forces). So in 1995, the “Berlin Mandate” had been agreed – rich countries would have to come to the 3rd meeting in 1997, with plans/commitments to cut their emissions.

The specific context was that the Australian government of Paul Keating had been deeply reluctant, and once there was a switch to John Howard, the anti-action work had turbocharged. This briefing came during a “charm” (sic) offensive by Howard’s people, trying to get a special deal for Australia. Clive Hamilton, who had set up the Australia Institute three years earlier, was not amused.

What I think we can learn from this is that the Australian political and economic elite are, of course, criminally incompetent when it comes to a host of issues. But especially climate…

What happened next – Howard succeeded in getting that extremely generous deal at Kyoto. Then STILL didn’t ratify it, on general (lack of) principle.

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: 

August 5, 1971 – First “South Pacific Forum” happens – All Our Yesterdays

August 5, 1997 – Australian politician calls for “official figures” on #climate to be suspended because they are rubbery af

August 5, 2010 – academics call for insurance industry to get involved in climate fight

Categories
United States of America

August 4, 1980 – “Towards a Troubled 21st Century” reports Time Magazine

Forty five years ago, on this day, August 4th, 1980, Time Magazine was reporting on the “Global 2000” report put out by the Carter Administration.

As compared with such doomsday forecasts as that of the Club of Rome’s 1972 The Limits to Growth, which predicted mass starvation, political chaos, and general catastrophe by the middle of the next century, the study is cautiously restrained, even muted, giving its warnings more impact in a way…. 

Less predictable, but no less frightening: a possible global heating from the growing volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere—expected to rise a third over preindustrial levels by century’s end from continued burning of fossil fuels.

“Toward a Troubled 21st Century: A Presidential Panel Finds the Global Outlook Extremely Bleak,” Time Magazine (4 August 1980): p. 54

Environment: Toward a Troubled 21st Century | TIME

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 339ppm. As of 2025, 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 was that the warnings had been coming for a long time. Time had covered it in 1953, after all.

The specific context was that the Global 2000 report, begun shortly after Jimmy Carter became President, was a pretty good stab at the problems ahead. Of course it was met with a fierce and stupid backlash by fierce and stupid people at the Heritage Foundation etc.

What I think we can learn from this – any effort to raise the alarm will be met with the cry of “alarmist”, no matter how credentialled, sober and cautious you are.

What happened next – in September 1980 it was obvious that Ronald Reagan, republican candidate for the presidency, wasn’t even AWARE of the Global 2000 report. And the rest? It’s history and emissions, until the latter mean there’s none of the former. Oh well.

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: 

August 4, 1988 – Hawke Cabinet asks for “what can we do?” report on climate.

August 4, 2004 – Australian farmers nervous about climate change. Ignored – All Our Yesterdays

August 4, 2008 – Police pepper spray #climate campers

Categories
Science

August 4, 1978 – “A Terminal Mesozoic ‘Greenhouse’: Lessons from the Past”

Forty seven years ago, on this day, August 4th, 1978, Science publishes

A Terminal Mesozoic “Greenhouse”: Lessons from the Past

Dewey M. McLean

The late Mesozoic rock and life records implicate short-term (up to 105 to 106 years) global warming resulting from carbon dioxide—induced “greenhouse” conditions in the late Maestrichtian extinctions that terminated the Mesozoic Era. Oxygen isotope data from marine microfossils suggest late Mesozoic climatic cooling into middle Maestrichtian, and warming thereafter into the Cenozoic. Animals adapting to climatic cooling could not adapt to sudden warming. Small calcareous marine organisms would have suffered solution effects of carbon dioxide—enriched waters; animals dependent upon them for food would also have been affected. The widespread terrestrial tropical floras would likely not have reflected effects of a slight climatic warming. In late Mesozoic, the deep oceanic waters may have been triggered into releasing vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in a chain reaction of climatic warming and carbon dioxide expulsion. These conditions may be duplicated by human combustion of the fossil fuels and by forest clearing.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 335ppm. As of 2025, 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 was that the 1970s was the decade when the basic science became “settled.” For what that turned out to be worth!

The specific context was that by this time the World Meteorological Organisation had said it would hold the First World Climate Conference, in Geneva, in February 1979.

What I think we can learn from this is that information on its own is not worth a bucket of warm spit.

What happened next. The scientists tried to interest the politicians. The politicians didn’t listen. In 1988 the politicians began to pretend to listen. Meanwhile, the emissions just went up and 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: 

August 4, 1988 – Hawke Cabinet asks for “what can we do?” report on climate.

August 4, 2004 – Australian farmers nervous about climate change. Ignored – All Our Yesterdays

August 4, 2008 – Police pepper spray #climate campers

Categories
United States of America

 August 3, 2019 – another eco-fascist massacre

Six years ago, on this day, August 3rd 2019, another of the eco-fascist massacres that I fear we will see more of…

Crusius bought a semiautomatic rifle online and 1,000 rounds of hollow-point 39 mm shells. On Aug. 3, 2019, he got into his gray Honda Civic and drove nearly 10 hours toward El Paso, Texas. Entering the city, he turned into the Cielo Vista Walmart Supercenter parking lot. By some accounts, he wanted a snack, but after briefly going into the store filled with Hispanic shoppers, he returned to his car, posted a vitriolic 2,400-word manifesto to the extremist social media site 8chan and got the gun. He shot 45 people, ultimately killing 23, eight of them Mexican citizens. “This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas,” Crusius wrote. “I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 411ppm. As of 2025, 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 was that settler colonialism requires racism – hatred, fear, supremacism. If you’re going to push people off land, you have to stop seeing them as people. This is not rocket science.

The specific context was that the climate issue had been deliberately polarised/politicised in the late 1980s and early 1990s, by “conservatives” seeking to maintain the status quo (which is, after all, what conservatives do). Alongside this, well, the Great Chain of Being/White Replacement Theory and So. Many. Guns.

What I think we can learn from this is that this is going to happen a lot more.

What happened next

From wikipedia 

In 2023, Crusius pleaded guilty to 90 federal murder and hate crime charges,[21][22] and he was sentenced to 90 consecutive life sentences.[23]

In March 2025, El Paso County District Attorney James Montoya offered a plea deal on state charges, allowing Crusius to avoid the death penalty by pleading guilty in exchange for a life sentence without parole or appeal. This decision followed consultations with victims’ families, many of whom preferred a swift resolution.[24] Crusius pleaded guilty to the state charges on April 21, 2025, and was sentenced to life in prison without parole.[25]

Victims:

  • Andre Anchondo, 23
  • Jordan Anchondo, 24
  • Arturo Benavides, 60
  • Leonardo Campos, 41
  • Angie Englisbee, 86
  • Maria Flores, 77
  • Raul Flores, 83
  • Guillermo “Memo” Garcia, 36[a]
  • Jorge Calvillo García, 61
  • Adolfo Cerros Hernández, 68
  • Alexander Gerhard Hoffman, 66
  • David Johnson, 63
  • Luis Alfonzo Juarez, 90
  • Maria Eugenia Legarreta Rothe, 58
  • Maribel (Campos) Loya, 56
  • Ivan Filiberto Manzano, 46
  • Elsa Mendoza Marquez, 57
  • Gloria Irma Márquez, 61
  • Margie Reckard, 63
  • Sara Esther Regalado Moriel, 66
  • Javier Rodriguez, 15
  • Teresa Sanchez, 82
  • Juan Velazquez, 77
  •  Garcia initially survived the shooting, but died on
    April 26, 2020, as a result of his injuries.[42]

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: 

August 3, 1958 – under the pole goes the Nautilus – All Our Yesterdays

August 3, 1970 – Nixon warned about climate change and icecaps melting

August 3, 1988 – Exxon tries to downplay “the greenhouse effect.” Again.

Categories
Australia

August 2, 2000 – BHP shows its true colours

Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 2, 2000, BHP was defending its interests…

Clennell, A. 2000. BHP Threat To Greenhouse Gases Program. Sydney Morning Herald, 3 August, p.5.

BHP yesterday threatened to opt out of the Federal Government’s Greenhouse Challenge program, saying there was inadequate incentives to reduce emissions.

The company said existing policy contained no “simple, powerful rules” to reward large firms for early action. It proposed that the Government introduce “emissions permits [that] would be granted to companies that acted to reduce emissions post January 2000.”

Those permits would later become part of any Australian chapter of an international emissions trading scheme planned after the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

It is understood under BHP’s plan that for every tonne of emission reductions before 2001, a company would receive emission permits of four tonnes when a domestic carbon trading scheme is introduced.

For every tonne reduced between 2001 and 2002, the company would receive permits for three tonnes. The allowances would fall until 2004. 2000 – BHP hesitant over Greenhouse Challenge Programme

http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s158734.htm

AM Archive – Thursday, 3 August , 2000 00:00:00

Reporter: Alsion Caldwell

 COMPERE: BHP says it’s not ready to commit to the Federal Government’s greenhouse challenge program, arguing it needs greater certainty in government policy.

 And BHP isn’t alone. Industry groups are hesitant, saying they want greater certainty and an incentive to act now on cutting back greenhouse gas emissions.

 The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry spokesman, Mark Paterson, spoke to Alison Caldwell.

MARK PATERSON: The ramifications for Australia, for employment, for Australia’s international competitiveness is right on the line.

 Businesses are quite clearly saying that they want greater certainty as to the regime we’re going to be operating in. But I think there’s a clear recognition that too much too soon is potentially harmful and too little too late is harmful.

 There are a number of issues on which an international understanding has not yet been reached, and if Australia were to push too far ahead, we could well be out of step with international regimes and therefore potentially do Australia harm.

 We don’t yet know what the flexibility mechanisms are going to be. The definition of sinks and the role of sinks is not yet resolved internationally. The nature of the international trading regime, if one is to be introduced, the nature of that regime is not yet known. And the role of bringing developing nations into the Kyoto outcome is not yet clear. And all of those are critically important issues for Australia.

ALISON CALDWELL: Now BHP is one of the founding members of the Greenhouse Challenge Program. If they’re concerned about committing, what does that say about the Program’s future?

MARK PATERSON: Many people have been active participants within the Greenhouse Challenge Program which is about voluntary actions to reduce emissions. And it’s been a very successful voluntary program. I think it will continue to be a successful voluntary program, notwithstanding the fact that a company like BHP may hold a different view in relation to it.

COMPERE: Mark Paterson from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry..

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 370ppm. As of 2025, 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 was that Australian political elites had been aware of the potential problem of carbon dioxide build-up since the 1970s (front page news on the Canberra Times etc). In 1988 they’d been forced to start to pretend to care about it actively.

The specific context was that Prime Minister John Howard had come to office in 1996 and realised that actively pulling out of the UNFCCC was probably a) too bloody and b) actually unnecessary. Instead he lobbied for a special deal at the Kyoto conference in 1997 and also turbo-charged some public relations “voluntary scheme” created by the previous Keating government.

What I think we can learn from this is that even pretending comes with costs and incentives, as BHP were pointing out here.

What happened next – Howard kept resisting any and all significant climate action. Finally, in 2006 he was forced into one of his U-turns, but it didn’t save him – he lost the 2007 “climate change election” and his own seat.

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: 

 August 2, 1970 – LA Times runs #climate change front page story

August 2, 1991- Pledge and Review… – All Our Yesterdays

August 2, 1992 – Canberra Times reporting that Jastrow idiot #RelevanceDeprivationSyndrome – All Our Yesterdays

August 2, 1994 – Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating says greenies should ignore “amorphous issue of greenhouse”

August 2, 2007 – Russia plants a flag on the Arctic sea-bed.

Categories
United States of America

August 2, 1972, Paul Goodman dies

Fifty three years ago, on this day, August 2, 1972, Paul Goodman died.

Paul Goodman (September 9, 1911 – August 2, 1972) was an American writer and public intellectual best known for his 1960s works of social criticism. Goodman was prolific across numerous literary genres and non-fiction topics, including the arts, civil rights, decentralization, democracy, education, media, politics, psychology, technology, urban planning, and war. As a humanist and self-styled man of letters, his works often addressed a common theme of the individual citizen’s duties in the larger society, and the responsibility to exercise autonomy, act creatively, and realize one’s own human nature.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 327ppm. As of 2025, 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 was the “New Left” owed a debt – sometimes acknowledged, sometimes not – to brave smart men and women who kept the flame alive during the 1950s. Goodman was a very big deal for many young Americans who worried about the consequences of modernity (conformity, ugliness, war etc).

What I think we can learn from this – prophets in their own land/time etc etc.

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: 

 August 2, 1970 – LA Times runs #climate change front page story

August 2, 1991- Pledge and Review… – All Our Yesterdays

August 2, 1992 – Canberra Times reporting that Jastrow idiot #RelevanceDeprivationSyndrome – All Our Yesterdays

August 2, 1994 – Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating says greenies should ignore “amorphous issue of greenhouse”

August 2, 2007 – Russia plants a flag on the Arctic sea-bed.