2011 was the year everyone suddenly developed an opinion on the environment, because all of a sudden the environment was out to take their air-conditioner, their TV, their right to a comfortable suburban life, and their trip to Borneo to see the environment. The Great Big New Tax (which David Pannell explained is not actually a tax but a fixed-price emissions trading scheme) took the environment from “that thing out there that Sting used to bang on about” to a threat to our very way of life. It was no wonder people wished the whole climate change thing wasn’t happening (in fact, Ben Newell looked at why people have trouble dealing with the concept).
But unfortunately, as Karl Braganza so compellingly showed, climate change is happening. This was a year where Michael Raupach revealed emissions are rising faster than ever, Roger Dargaville explained why the chance to stop warming at 2 degrees has slipped away; and Peter Christoff pointed out even a gathering of thousands of bureaucrats (even that!) can’t save us from ourselves. You’d be forgiven for deciding it’s time to give up. But here at The Conversation we’ve bravely soldiered on (thanks to some good advice from Megan Bissing-Olson), providing megatonnes of coverage of climate science and climate policy.
Were you tempted to listen to those seductive voices telling you climate change is actually a Communist plot to destroy the economy and keep scientists in the luxurious lifestyle they’ve become so disgustingly used to? With a lot of help from Stephan Lewandowsky, we brought you a (rather shockingly well-read) series on why climate denial happens and what’s really going on in the climate debate. We also lifted the slightly grotty lid on media coverage of climate change and asked, “climate denial: what’s in it for the journos?” We must have done something right, because these series were picked up by papers in New York and London.
Of course, it’s not just academics who think climate change is a real thing. Even some politicians have decided it’s time to pay attention to science, and we talked with Will Steffen about how scientists and policy makers work together. Thanks to the unlikely combination of politics and science, 2011 was the year we pulled together a bevy of experts to analyse Australia’s decision to make people pay when they pollute the atmosphere with excess carbon dioxide. Remember when the carbon tax solved the environment problem once and for all? Phew.
It’s easy to forget there is a whole lot more to the environment and to energy than climate change. Climate change has been the big story of the year and probably of at least the last five years. As John Abraham explained, here’s nothing like a coming apocalypse to really focus people’s attention.
But meanwhile, thousands of researchers have continued slogging away at their non-climate-change fields, bringing us all kinds of fascinating research and doing their bit to make a difference. This year we’ve looked at whether there are plenty more fish in the sea, why people are driving less, what to do about shark attacks, why India needs nuclear power, how to feed humans and still protect biodiversity, whether the Tassie devil can be saved, how to cram more people into our cities, why state governments are turning against wind power, whether biofuels will ever work, Australia’s love affair with cycling, putting oil rigs to good use, getting energy efficient, if bats will kill us all, the realities of stopping whaling and why buses rule.
And of course in the world of energy, 2011 has been all coal seam gas all the time, and we’ve brought you the evidence-based opinions of a host of academics, whose CSG work you probably haven’t seen in any other media. As coal seam gas mining took off in Queensland and NSW, trying to stop it brought farmers and environmentalists together. Crusty old blokes who once would have yelled “get a job” at greenie blockaders began D-locking themselves to bulldozers to keep the miners out (and Samanthan Hepburn explained why the law says they may as well give up).
Tina Hunter discussed whether CSG is important enough to let it threaten agricultural land, while Bryce Kelly outlined the risk to water.
Dennis Cooke said CSG is a low-emissions fuel that would help us get off coal. The debate is still far from over: local research on emissions is just kicking off, but Colin Hunt assures us the climate change benefits look far from certain.
For me, though, the most interesting discovery has been how much people care about the treatment of animals. It may have been a surprise to the producers at Four Corners, too. Of course, live animal exports was the biggest of these stories, but Clive Phillips' article on how chickens are treated, Siobhan Sullivan’s persuasive argument that racehorses should get a bigger share of Melbourne Cup winnings, and Ian Colditz’s guide to measuring the value of an animal’s life have been among our most-read. And while it wasn’t the section’s most popular story, I thought John Hadley’s look at why animals should have a legal right to the habitat they live in was one of the more thought-provoking stories we’ve run.
Climate change, CSG, live animal exports and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan may have been 2011’s biggest energy and environment news stories according to the media. But the Conversation’s readers have different ideas. Our most popular stories for the year? You guessed it: Ashley Franks' how-to on making electricity from mud and Mike Archer’s investigation of how vegetarians kill more animals than meat eaters.
On the horizon
I certainly didn’t predict how interested people would be in bacteria’s ability to make power, so the chances of me successfully predicting 2012’s big stories are less than slim.
I do know that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is now open for consultation and that submissions will close in April 2012. We’re hoping to make a bit of a splash with a submission of our own.
The carbon price will come into force on 1 July 2012, so we can expect to see the economy collapse by August and a new ice age set in around October. Funding should begin flowing to more renewable energy projects and to carbon farming and biodiversity initiatives, so we’ll be assessing how much difference the cash can make.
Towards the end of the year the climate parties will once more meet in conference (COP18) to come up with a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol. This time around the meeting is in Qatar, though December’s chilly weather might not provide the object lesson offered by the 50°C maxima of Doha’s sweltering summer. And maybe this time we’ll get to report a massive breakthrough.
Until then, enjoy the holidays by turning off your phone and getting out into nature.
Join the conversation
Comments (44)
Pat McKelvey
(logged in via Facebook)
"The Year that Was" was certainly improved by the easily digested diet of scientific and academic information made available to readers by The Conversation. Thanks, all of you.
Richard Davis
Telecommunications Engineer (logged in via email @bigpond.net.au)
It most certainly was Pat and the thing that impressed me most was the science community stood strong and didn't fight back using the same tactics. GO TEAM!
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
"2011 was the year everyone suddenly developed an opinion on the environment," -- really? Need to talk to more folks who've been working the issues for, well, decades.
;]
If we go back to the '50s & '60s, we find many folks, including Nobellists, who saw exactly what was happening & said what to do. Might be better to advise folks to read: "The Folly of Fools", to better understand how we got ourselves in such a mess. Or, maybe just the old country saying will do: "There's no substitute for human stupidity".
Indeed scientists & engineers knew exactly what to do 60 years ago...
http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa
And while aiming to eliminate fossil-fuel power generation by 2000, they even reported to Congress & Presidents several times on actions to take. One, in the '60s was to plant 1 trillion trees per year. Yes, 200 per capita worldwide per year. As Rick Perry might say "Oops". Too many "oops" later, we're now almost waking up -- almost.
Doug Cotton
(logged in via Facebook)
And what did they predict for the Arctic? Six to eight degrees of warming by 2100 I think you'll find. Maybe they need to plant trees up there.
Try extrapolating this plot, one of very few cherries available to be picked in the area I'm afraid, but probably representative of there being no warming up there since the 1930's.: http://climate-change-theory.com/JanMayen.jpg
Do you (or anyone) have any contrary evidence for the Arctic dating back to the 1930's? I'm genuinely interested in…
show full comment
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Oops, Cotton is trolling over here too! But without his carefully manicured picture. Doug doesn't yet take any of the offered bets & carefully stays away from any data that he can't stomach, such as sea rise, ocean acidification (which the Nordic folks are now well aware of), or actual long-term Arctic/Antarctic temp data. Don't be caught in his fluffy chaff trap. There's no science inside!
He could get it, but just can't bring himself to do that. He will however sell you some of his skin creams & youth pills -- ask him!
;]
Doug Cotton
(logged in via Facebook)
You haven't helped with the sort of data I asked for and are only cluttering this thread, referring to unlinked items you consider provide proof that the world warmed last century, which much of it did, but not the Arctic. Meanwhile the Antarctic is starting to cool and sea levels have been falling since 2008. And as for ocean acidification, try understanding this my friend ... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/the-ocean-is-not-getting-acidified/
In any event, no temperature data proves…
show full comment
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Double oops, there Doug! You've been told on at least 2 other threads how to get real facts from all the various publications, but it's just too hard & threatening to your misinformation, eh?
Here are some search terms for ya ol' boy: "sea rise", "global warming", ocean acidification" (you know, the one you've no leg to stand on -- oops, you don't have legs for the other two either!)
;]
Still awaiting your taking my bet, or would you rather post a bond that your kids & grandkids won't be cursing you for your uncaring unscience? Careful not to pick a doctor they way you pick your 'science'.
;]
PS, when you have gumption to put your pic back up, maybe you'll have manned up to take my bet? Remember, the one Monckton didn't have the cojones for?
Doug Cotton
(logged in via Facebook)
Yes, well when you can prove that Arctic temperatures were not higher in the 1930's than at present we might get somewhere. Here's some more information I've now found on Arctic temperatures which confirms that Jan Mayen Island data is in fact representative of the whole area: It is also interesting to note a very sharp increase prior to 1930 which must have been "natural.". Remember, the GH hypothesis anticipates the biggest warming effect in the world up there. Yet nothing in their temperature…
show full comment
David Arthur
n/a (logged in via email @fastel.com.au)
Proof that the Arctic wasn't warmer in the 1930's than at present?
You could always look at work by people at the International Arctic Research Center at U Alaska Fairbanks. They report year-by-year increase in methane emission from seabed sources on the East Siberian Arctic Ocean shelf. You can start reading about these OBSERVATIONAL studies at the article on Arctic methane release on Wikipedia, which refers numerous papers.
What's interesting is that I wrote this out in a reply to Mr Cotton three days ago, the day before Mr Cotton repeats his demand for this proof. Now, that's what I call "Denialism".
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Cotton won't read this because he's evidence immune and in total denial about even the Greenhouse effect - but here's a pretty good summary
http://www.skepticalscience.com/updating-the-big-picture.html
Gideon Polya
(Cessional Lecturer in Biochemistry for Agricultural Science at La Trobe University)
As evidenced by 2011, Durban and the article, neither Australia nor the World seem prepared to deal with man-made climate change that acutely threatens Humanity (it is estimated that 10 billion will die this century in a Climate Genocide due to unaddressed man-made climate change: https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/ ) and the Biosphere (the species extinction rate is currently 100-1,000 times greater than normal: http://www.soc.duke.edu/~pmorgan/levin&levin.2002.the_real_biodiversity_crisis…
show full comment
Dale Bloom
Laboratory analyst (logged in via email @mail.com)
Gideon,
So what do you propose we do about it?
Most proposals I have seen to date ultimately involve selling more and more coal, so we can earn revenue, so we can import highly expensive nuclear reactors, or something such as wind farms.
Do you have any other solutions?
David Arthur
n/a (logged in via email @fastel.com.au)
I'm not sure what Dr Polya would propose, but here's my suggestion (off topic for this page, sorry, but you did ask ...)
My solution is to give ourselves great big tax cuts, for which we pay a consumption tax on use of fossil carbon. The following year, we give ourselves more tax cuts, with a commensurate increase in the rate of the fossil carbon consumption tax.
This way, we'll eventually price fossil carbon use out of the economy, and in the meantime we'll all have invested in low/zero fossil fuel use equipment and technology. We'll have invented and improved much of said technology as we go, which we'll be able to export in place of coal, or give away as foreign aid.
Gideon Polya
(Cessional Lecturer in Biochemistry for Agricultural Science at La Trobe University)
What needs to be done to "tackle climate change" effectively: 1. Change of societal philosophy to one of scientific risk management and biological sustainability with complete cessation of species extinctions and zero tolerance for lying.
2. Urgent reduction of atmospheric CO2 to a safe level of about 300 ppm as recommended by leading climate and biological scientists (see "300.org": http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm ) .
3. Rapid switch to…
show full comment
Dale Bloom
Laboratory analyst (logged in via email @mail.com)
Gideob and David,
Thanks for that,I personally like some of those ideas. I think it is important to firstly know where energy is being used, and I would like to see more emphasis placed on energy audits being undertaken of businesses and of homes. After those audits, energy reduction programs can be implemented, with a vast number of possible ways to reduce energy consumption.
It would stimulate innovation, and any money saved can be re-invested back to install more energy saving systems. It becomes ongoing, with continuous emphasis placed on reducing energy consumption. Whenever energy is used, it is creating heat that eventually goes into the environment, and the production of that energy normally uses up resources and creates some type of pollution.
I am uncertain whether all attention should be placed on CO2, and whether other gasses or types of atmospheric contaminants such as methane, nitrous oxides and black carbon have to be considered also.
David Arthur
n/a (logged in via email @fastel.com.au)
Gday Dale, I can think of a couple of reasons for concentrating on CO2.
1. It's the biggest greenhouse gas problem we have.
2. Much of the emissions of the other constituents you mention are byproducts of fossil fuel use
- some nitrous oxides are generated from fertiliser use (ammonia synthesis itself uses fossil fuel), but some nitrous oxide is a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion in air
- "fugitive emissions" from mining and petroleum processing contribute a significant fraction of methane
- combustion of fossil fuels also contribute a significant fraction of black carbon.
Dale Bloom
Laboratory analyst (logged in via email @mail.com)
And increased CO2 in the atmosphere is decreasing ocean water pH.
However, I think there is enough general evidence to show that if electricity is made readily available, customers will waste too much electricity, or they will be using gadgets or equipment they don’t really need, which in turn increases resource depletion and eventually adds to pollution or waste disposal problems.
So whatever new system of electricity generation is developed in the future, it would have to run parallel with systems to reduce electricity consumption.
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Yes indeed. The position of environmental organizations is that since we currently waste >50% of electrical generation, efficiency is one very clean source of power. So, the engineering/environmental realities lead us to a 3-legged foundation for the future: a) efficiency, b) solar on local structures, with various storage options, and c) safe nuclear power, 24/7, as from Thorium MSRs. I lik ethat the Aussies & Czechs are teaming up to compete with China on c)...
www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/australian-and-czech-consortium-announce-thorium-j
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/04/china-academy-of-science-annual-budget.html
...and, India, S. Africa & others are in the game too. We're all a bit late, of course.
Dale Bloom
Laboratory analyst (logged in via email @mail.com)
Hi Alex,
Thanks for that. I intend to do more reading regards thorium reactors, and then watch their development.
A concern with new forms of electricity generation, is that the cost of the electricity initially being generated is often high, which means higher electricity bills for the consumer. If the consumer is a householder, and they simply absorb these increased electricity costs, then they can be saving less money for their retirement or for their kids etc.
So electricity costs…
show full comment
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Dale, as a Sierra Club member & supporter of most every environmental org, I agree with your concern, and fortunately, so does Calif. govt. Since the 1970's oil embargo, Calif. has actually maintained energy consumption per capita constant, while the rest of the US has increased that by over 40%. So the issue is clear and some attempts are being made in some states to address it. Uniform building codes, like CA AB32 & Title 24 help, but programs to encourage solar DG will as well. Fortunately…
show full comment
Dale Bloom
Laboratory analyst (logged in via email @mail.com)
Hi Alex,
I am certain that other forms of electricity power generation can be established, but always at a cost, and I have heard that current nuclear power generators were often built over cost budget, and also over time budget.
That is quite possible with thorium reactors also, at least in the early stages of building them. All that amounts to increased costs for the consumer eventually, or if a government is building them, increased taxes for the taxpayer. Considering the current debt crisis…
show full comment
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Dale, fortunately, the cost of implementing something that already was partly developed and operated decades ago is much less than starting from scratch. That's what the MSR is all about. And, when the real costs of coal, etc. are accounted for, any new fission technology like MSR/LFTR comes out way ahead. However, legislative effort is required, and established industry needs redirection. That's the price we now pay for mistakes made decades ago.
The Calif. Energy Commission has many pieces of information you could use, in particular presentations by former Commissioner Art Rosenfeld...
http://www.energy.ca.gov/
http://docs.nrdc.org/energy/files/ene_10030901a.pdf
Dale Bloom
Laboratory analyst (logged in via email @mail.com)
Thanks Alex, I have received those links.
What could be interesting is the rebuilding being carried out in Japan after the tsunami, and what innovative systems they develop to reduce power consumption.
“Draft reconstruction plans and brainstorming include ideas such as recycling disaster debris to make tsunami barriers or artificial hills, installing solar panels on new homes, farming seaweed to make biofuel, and designing compact, walkable communities.”
http://news.yahoo.com/post-tsunami-eco-vision-japans-restart-164850505.html
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
A fellow engineer & I may actually be involved in assessing the situation on the ground in Japan, and a number of folks have written about some of the things Japan has long put off doing with regard to building efficiency, insulation, etc. There's plenty of room for improvement.
But, one thing to keep in mind is land use policy in Japan has been the prime cause of costly damage. The New Yorker article by Evan Osnos (17 Dec) ends with a stunning paragraph -- many carved stone tablets are in…
show full comment
David Arthur
n/a (logged in via email @fastel.com.au)
Gday Alex, while your remarks about efficiencies of exploiting biofuels may well be correct, it should be noted that there are more reasons for developing algal biofuels than just energy supply. MobilExxon funds Craig Venter's group on GM algae, which may be greenwash or maybe they see a future in non-MIddle Eastern hydrocarbon sources.
In particular, energy recovery can be a handy byproduct (via fuel cells, rather than thermal combustion) of advanced wastewater treatment, for which the major…
show full comment
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Thanks for the comments David. Yes, the fossil-combustion folks are quite active in the 'green' stuff. Total of France acquired a majority of SunPower. And Chevron, etc. advertize their bio-this, green-that investments.
But, the reality has been that they've been exquisitely careful to exclude nuclear power, which would sweep away their own continued profit from subsidized emissions generation. This has gone on since at least the Shoreham nuke plant was stopped in NY. The local ads in papers…
show full comment
Alex Cannara
(logged in via Facebook)
Oops, theis sentence is a burp: "At the burning end, thermodynamics limits all fuel efficiency to 80% water. " -- it should end with just "...efficiency to about 30% in engines."
Doug Cotton
(logged in via Facebook)
This was the year when three key issues arose which should trouble Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) proponents ...
(a) Predictions of the most warming supposedly due to carbon dioxide are in the Arctic - namely 6 to 8 degrees by 2100. Yet historical records at Jan Mayen Island (latitude 70.9N - within the Arctic circle) show absolutely no warming since 1930 and in fact show warmer temperatures in the 1930's.
(b) Prof. Claes Johnson has published a detailed mathematical proof that back radiation…
show full comment
David Arthur
n/a (logged in via email @fastel.com.au)
You don't give up about this back-radiation Denial, do you?
It matters not how many "proofs" your pals devise, back-radiation is OBSERVED.
Recorded temperatures at Jan Mayer Island in the 1930's being higher than this decade may be due to waxing and waning of ocean currents in the North Atlantic, or less advanced meteorological methods than present. BTW, remember how the BEST people (Richard Muller et al) were supposed to show up the flaws in temperature databases? Remind us again of what they found.
Doug Cotton
(logged in via Facebook)
Yes, but the observed back radiation has not been observed actually warming the surface, which is impossible. In fact experiments have proved that it does not warm the surface at all, in accord with mathematical derivations based on standard physics. Please take care to understand what Prof. Claes Johnson and I are saying before launching into irrelevant comments such as you have here about the observations of back radiation.
Whether or not back radiation exists, our point about it having no…
show full comment
David Arthur
n/a (logged in via email @fastel.com.au)
"... but the observed back radiation has not been observed actually warming the surface ..."
For goodness' sake, Doug, the fact that it is detected at the surface at all implies that it is warming the surface; that is what thermal radiation does.
Regarding Jan Mayer Island: generalising from one location smacks of cherry-picking. You could always look at work by people at the International Arctic Research Center at U Alaska Fairbanks. They report year-by-year increase in methane emission from seabed sources on the East Siberian Arctic Ocean shelf. You can start reading about these OBSERVATIONAL studies at the article on Arctic methane release on Wikipedia, which refers numerous papers.
What's interesting about these observations is that humanity may have already initiated runaway warming.
Doug Cotton
(logged in via Facebook)
If you don't wish to study Prof. Claes Johnson's paper (and in effect call him a fool, pitting your maths and physics against his) then that's your prerogative. But I would suggest you read him first.
You are mistaken in assuming that if back radiation is detected at the surface it is warming the surface. It does not have sufficient energy to do anything to the molecules it encounters which are emitting higher energy radiation. None of its energy enters the molecule and gets converted to thermal…
show full comment
David Arthur
n/a (logged in via email @fastel.com.au)
Doug, either you and this Prof bloke don't understand what is pretty straightforward physics (as explained to you by Mark Harrigan and others on other Conversations eg News Ltd carbon coverage campaigning not reporting: new report + ... theconversation.edu.au/news-ltd-carbon-coverage-campaigning-not- reporting-new-report-news-response-4530), in which case you are fools, or you do understand the physics.
Yourself, you give the impression of not knowing the physics, but you're writing a book. Ian Plimer's done well out of that.
Doug Cotton
(logged in via Facebook)
You really must be joking, thinking our friend Dr Harrigan knows more about the maths and physics involved in the multi-page proof derived by Professor Claes Johnson, one of the most brilliant in his field in the world. Dr Harrigan does little more than echo the mistaken beliefs of the IPCC in this regard.
The IPCC has never provided any theoretical or empirical proof that low energy radiation (which cannot even raise a molecule to an excited state) can knock an electron out of orbit in order…
show full comment
David Arthur
n/a (logged in via email @fastel.com.au)
Your fixation on the IPCC is truly pathetic. As I've previously pointed out to you, IPCC Working Group 1 is simply an umbrella group for periodic reviews of the science. It's incontrovertible by now, and "heroes" like your beloved Slaying the Sky Dragon fabricators are simply the sort of perversion we have to suffer from time to time in order to have freedom of speech.
The discovery of global warming has taken a good deal of time and thought. Notable figures include Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, Planck (I notice that this Johnson is trying to "debunk" the Planck distribution, that's how desperate you shysters have become), Callendar, Keeling, Plass, and Hansen.
Doug Cotton
(logged in via Facebook)
"The discovery of global warming" was made with thermometers. Strangely, in 1979 when "thermometers" started to be replaced with highly accurate microwave measurements from satellites, we started to see a different picture ... like this http://climate-change-theory.com/latest.jpg ... a curved cyclic trend now past its maximum and starting to head downwards.
The year 2011 has been a year of genuine breakthroughs with the brilliant work of Prof. Claes Johnson (answering questions that left even…
show full comment
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Here's a REAL WORLD experiment
Explain why nights are warming faster/more frequently than days
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/fingerprint4.gif
and winters are warming faster/more frequently than summers?
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/fingerprint6.gif
All since about the time the global warming temperature anomaly started to radically increase and all since temperature stopped correlating with solar radiation.
here http://www.skepticalscience…
show full comment
David Arthur
n/a (logged in via email @fastel.com.au)
The year 1979 was also around the time that sunlight-reflecting air pollution from post-WW2 industrial expansions started to be curtailed thanks to efforts to remove lead from petrol and sulfur from fossil fuels and industrial exhaust plumes, at least in the Industrialised West.
This left the skies clear enough for the effect of accumulated atmospheric CO2 to start to be realised, a warming effect that was further enhanced in the 1990's with the industrial decline of the former Soviet bloc.
The Chinese industrial expansion of the last decade or so, powered as it is by high-sulfur Chinese coal, coinciding with a minimisation of solar output, and ongoing heat transfer to oceans and icecaps is a more plausible explanation for the slowdown in atmospheric temperature over the last decade than the theoretical construct you cite.
David Nutzuki
(logged in via Twitter)
Seriously, an oil exec has a gun to my head and tells me what to think and type?
If you remaining fear mongers really loved the planet and your fellow Humans, you would welcome the obvious conclusion that CO2 fears were tragic exaggerations.
Science denied the dangers or their pesticides don’t' forget. Or did you selfish fear mongers want this misery to have been true?
David Nutzuki
(logged in via Twitter)
Now we arrest the treasonous fear mongers who issued CO2 death threats to our children.
Call the courthouse:
We missed getting Bush’s liars and fear mongers so let’s get the charges over with sooner than later:
U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
or By Phone: Department of Justice Main Switchboard -202-514-2000
David Nutzuki
(logged in via Twitter)
Meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading markets run by corporations and politicians to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 25 years of INSANE attempts at climate CONTROL.
David Nutzuki
(logged in via Twitter)
Shame on all of you for condemning my kids to the greenhouse gas chambers with such childish glee.
LiberCons;George Bush Jr. is proud of your criminal fear mongering with climate change:
Remember when before Human induced climate change crisis came along, you challenged, doubted and questioned all authority so as to legitimize it? LIBERALS; that is your role in society and we need you. But now climate blame has made you all herd animals following the livestock out to pasture like mindless Greenzis. And since when was issuing CO2 death threats to my kids supposed to be considered progressive and loving?
This was YOUR Iraq War of climate WMD lies and will keep you out of power for decades.
The 25 years of needless panic you goose stepped full of hate, fear and envy will put you pathetic Greenzis right beside witch burners and omen worshippers in the history books.
David Nutzuki
(logged in via Twitter)
Get ahead of the curve because that generation of children you selfish fear mongers of climate blame condemned to the greenhouse gas chambers, is all growed up now and back to bite ya.
Anyone still believing in climate change, probably still has a Palm Pilot and was the last fella ever, to show up to the party still in disco duds. And yer great great granddaddy worried about where we would put all of the horses needed by the year 2000.
David Nutzuki
(logged in via Twitter)
“Climate Change is real.”
“Our pesticides and chemicals do not cause cancer.”
-Saintly Scientists