Progress: Canadian Senate Listens to Global Warming Skeptics
On December 15, four leading scientists appeared before the Canadian Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources to challenge global warming advocacy. The hearing was the first of its kind in Canada. (Video of the hearing can be found here.)
Guelph University Professor of Economics Dr. Ross McKitrick led off the hearing, explaining that the foundation of the climate scare — the science as promulgated by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — cannot be trusted:
The so-called Climategate emails confirmed the reality of bias and cronyism in the IPCC process. … IPCC Assessments are guaranteed merely to repeat and reinforce a set of foregone conclusions that make up the party line.
McKitrick explained how his research showed that much of the warming seen in the IPCC surface temperature record is almost certainly a result of urbanization, agriculture, and other land use changes, not greenhouse gases (GHG). He also found that the 50-year record of temperatures measured by balloons does not show the warming trend forecast by climate models.
University of Ottawa (U of O) Professor of Earth Sciences Dr. Ian Clark addressed the committee:
We have not really seen any global warming for the past 10 years. … This is in stark contrast with the IPCC forecast of an increase of some 0.2 degrees per decade.
Clark explained that 20th century warming is merely one of a series of warm periods in the last 10,000 years. During these intervals, carbon dioxide — the greenhouse gas most targeted by governments around the world — was relatively steady:
CO2 had nothing to do with these warming periods.
Clark continued, showing that the last 500 million years show no correlation between temperature and CO2. He explained that water vapor is in fact responsible for the majority of the greenhouse effect. Clark also promoted the theory that the Sun, not CO2, is driving climate change. He concluded:
It is time to turn our attention to real, tangible environmental problems.
U of Ottawa Distinguished University Professor Dr. Jan Veizer spoke next:
Many people think the science of climate change is settled. It is not. … [The Sun] drives the water cycle; the water cycle then generates climate, and climate decides how much jungle, how much tundra and so on we will have, and therefore drives around the carbon cycle. … The sun also warms the oceans that emit CO2 into the atmosphere. Atmospheric CO2 is thus the product and not the cause of the climate.
For ease of viewing the hearing (it is over 2 hours in length) ICSC has created a Webpage that has the Senate climate hearing divided up into short video excerpts. Although it is not quite complete, we have released it to the public due to repeated requests for the slides shown by Professor Clark and Professor Veizer (which are now woven into their presentation videos).
Please see http://tinyurl.com/7mkgfw8 to view all presentation videos and several of the Q&A videos.
Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
Ottawa, Canada
Even when man made global warming is disproven beyond doubt the anti-fossil fuel, anti-business, anti-capitalist eco-Marxist Left will find some other pretense to slow, disrupt, or stop. Our energy development. Protecting the planet is merely a cover for their real agenda, Marxism.
Yep, they’ve already tried the population bomb, global cooling (the 70′s scare), depletion of the “rain forest”, acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, blobal warming – let’s see, am I forgetting anything? And that’s just in my lifetime. We’re all supposed to be dead already….
I wonder what the next boogey-man will be?
There is a huge Enviro industry dependent on donations, which dry up if they can’t claim that the Sky is Falling.
Yes, there is. Universities large and small stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in grants if man made “climate change” is shown to be the fraud it is. Governments stand to lose tens of billions of dollers in taxes and fees that they’ll no longer have an excuse to impose if the hoax is revealed to the public at large. Finally, “green” profiteers like Al Gore who collectively have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in green technologies and “cap and trade” schemes will lose their shirts if the whiole rotten house of cards comes down on their heads. Not to mention possible criminal cases and potential prison sentences for the people like Professor Michael Mann, who KNEW they were perpetrating a hoax and a fraud but did so anyway.
So Yes, there’s a huge stake at keeping the general public ignorant about the money being stolen from them by the “Greens.”
yea, you are.
You forgot that disposal baby diapers are filling up the landfills, that frogs were dying off due to AGW, that the spotted owl is becoming extinct due to logging; that the “hole” in the ozone is due to CFCs from refrigerants.
I am sure there are other scary lies out there, but that’s all I can think of right now.
Don’t forget what comes out of the back of my horses and how that has left us with a huge carbon foot to step into it with!
How could you forget the flatulent bovines? Oh, and Alar, of course? When one looks back it’s a wonder how so many people could be such goofs!! I bought into the New Ice Age myself, (but not the Y2K disaster) which is why I simply gave a Bronx cheer when global warning became the disaster du jour.
Some of the items on your list are or were real concerns, crisis NO, but concerns. Acid Rain was real, unfortunately for the eco-Marxists, of no great difficulty for real scientists to economically remedy.
Rain forest and accelerating population growth go hand-in-hand. Third world food production is dropping while its population is exploding. There are large and increasing areas of perpetual famine or nearily so. The Green Revolution, in food production, of the 1980′s and 1990′s, has failed. If you are interested there is a National Geographic article of June 2009. The problems there are real, but only the people that are THERE can solve them, and they seem disinclined. The issue value for the LIB-TARDS has already been used-up. They don’t care anyway!
“Acid Rain was real,… of no great difficulty for real scientists to economically remedy.”
And the market remedy? Cap and trade!
Just a brief note from the reality based community. Now back to your regular programming….
you are totally full of it;
if food supply was a concern then the USA, Europe and who knows where else would not be subsidizing food production to prop up prices.
when price supports on ag commodities totally disappear – PERMANENTLY – then, and only then – will you be correct.
the problem is food distribution and corruption. Further, if and when food does become a scarce resource, you will see old parking lots and shopping centers and abandoned housing developments turned back into farmland; the land will be too valuable to just sit idle.
Like all Malthusians and their neo-communist / progressive ilk, you are totally full of s^^t.
JA there are food shortages in the same areas where aids run ramoant. mainly the African countries where the only thing they are good at is having SEX,
“…subsidizing food production to prop up prices.” Ever take Econ 100? Obviously not….
“population Bomb” – well, maybe not a bomb as such, but the world population is due to pass 7 Billion sometime around 2025. Is that a problem, well, we’ll see.
Acid Rain had a significant impact on European forests during the 70s and 80s.
Depletion of the Rain Forests reduces the size of carbon sinks and also leads to the extinction of species and reduction of ecological diveresity. Once a species is extinct, it is gone.
The hole in the ozone layer over antarctica (yes, it IS there) led to an increase in melanomas and other skin cancers in Australia during the 90s. Luckily, effective action in getting rid of a large number of CFCs (and similiar agenst) has led to the hole getting smaller.
Actually, they said it passed 7 billion last October. The world didn’t ead. The revolution in food production has enabled farmers to be more efficient. However, the greens have scare mongered genetically modified food. I guess they’d rather people starve instead of using available technology to feed the population. Also, technology such as using gamma radiation greatly reduces food spoilage and food poisoning but of course the greens oppose that, too. Radiation is scary.
Hulk Smash!!!!
What a wonderfully targeted solution, reducing (allegedly) Australian skin cancers by abolishing CFCs, thus (allegedly) reducing an ozone hole over Antarctica, which is not Australia. Did you ever hear of SPF 50 and otherwise reducing solar exposure? The incidence of solar-induced skin cancers in Australia has always, always been high.
We should resist using the term “fossil fuel.” Fossils are rock-like copies of bones or tissues that have had their original cellular structures replaced or filled up with minerals. By contrast, coal, natural gas, and oil are mostly carbon or hydrocarbons, i.e., atoms or molecules resulting from the decomposition of organic material. They are, in essence, naturally stored sunshine. It would be better to call them “organic solar” fuels, or something like that.
There is a fairly strong hypothesis put forth by Thomas Gold that oil may have a geological rather than biological origin.
Geophysicists still use the old shale layer for a source rock theory and it serves them very well. They can’t say for sure, but their success rate is nearly 85% with this basis. The location of all oil and gas fields are very geologic, as you said.
I love that! Coal is an ORGANIC source of energy – decomposed vegetable matter compressed to a solid, concentrated form for the convenience of humankind. It is the Greens’ ultimate bio-fuel: requires no secondary processing , don’t need no frigging fracking – ready to use. Simply re-circulating carbon = just like H2O,
I’m certainly not going to tell this to my organically struck granddaughter. She’d likely take a long walk on a short plank!
Its interesting that you equate a shift from the energy base from fossill to renewable fuel sources as “anti-business” or “Marxist”. Easily exploitable oil reserves are depleted, yet the demand for energy continues to rise in support of increased economic growth in places such as China and India. To continue to support economic growth an alternative fuel to mitigate against increasing oil costs is required. That makes good business as well as good environmental sense. Developing these technologies can actually lead to the development of new industries and new jobs.
And as soon as one of these methods can make a profit without using my tax dollars for capital, I will be in support of your view. Government intervention in the marketplace will insure only one outcome, failure. Try easing up on depletion hype about hydrocarbon energy. We have a 200 year supply of natural gas on hand. And that can buy enough time for your so called green energy industry to learn how to make a profit.
Back in the ’70s, during the days of the Middle East oil embargo, many environmental and industry “experts” were projecting “depletion” of worldwide oil reserves by 2000 and 2010. And it could well have been, if capitalistic “greed” and competition had not driven the oil industry to find new fields, continually improve oil and gas extraction methods, create shale oil production and other methods to maintain energy supply levels. This was done by private industry competing for a resource for which there was a high demand – no government subsidies, just good ol’ capitalism. Presently our “renewable” sources of energy are only competitive under government subsidies, also known as crony capitalism (Solyndra and ethanol as an example). One of the problems with subsidizing alternate, non-competitive sources of energy is that it actually breeds technological stagnation. Why be creative, inventive and improve when you have a steady source of taxpayer money availabe?
You are so right Eric. we’ll still be scolded about our carbon footprints for the foreseeable future, even if global warming fades into obscurity. The greenies, regulators, and “green” companies have too much invested in this concept to let it go anytime soon.
Senator G Mitchell is a snarky liberal twit who seems to believe that man is responsible for earthquakes, and meteors.
I listened to the presentations and and presenter, I have for years, they have repeatedly stated the same thing.. They were lost in the crowd when this Glow-bull warming fad came to the scene.
We are about as responsible for that as we are for the snowfall in winter.
I fear the AGW cat is already out of the bag. Elementary school age children know plenty about it (much more than the water cycle or were oxygen comes from) and they are convinced its evil. I (continue) to blame this situation on a science establishment more interested in funding their vacations than actually policing their ranks. The marxists certainly adore this development but they did not possess the intellect to pull this off.
I have a list of 70+ senior PhDs, Professor Emeritus, Departments Heads, etc. from leading Universities and Laboratories, all over the world who have signed a common statement that man’s combustion of carbon is not causing major damage to the climate. Due to their backgrounds, they vary in their technical criticisms of the vaulted UN reports. This is not shocking to me, it is the norm for science. I have “refereed” such technical conflicts. At some point, I would summarize what we know.
I know that I am a dummy; climatology is not my field. I know that one timid expert in the back of the room has been correct in his prediction, while the majority of his colleagues were incorrect in their opposition to him. I am an energy engineer, and know that without the cheap, plentiful combustion of carbon, massive populations will die. Let me be clear. I know that carbon dioxide, CO2, is a tiny trace compound in our atmosphere. If its tinier increases in CO2 are quite harmful to man’s future, billions are doomed. Except for uranium, there is no substitute for a prime fuel to supply our base loaded energy needs. I know that North America is blessed with vast readily recoverable reserves of carbon fuel, either in solid, liquid or gaseous phase, centuries worth of fuel. They are essential to our advanced way of life.
All alternate energy technologies are inherently costly. For over a century their proponents have claimed that in five to ten years, they will dominate energy supply. I know that each has a cottage industry that survives on R&D grants and start up subsidies. We should fund R&D, but demand objective goals be achieved, and people held to account for public money expenditures.
The vast majority of energy subsidies are purposefully misnamed. They are industrial tax deductions, available to all industries. They are not true subsidies, give away money. Subsidies do exist; they are the result of lobbyist’s intense back room efforts. They must be exposed and considered in public open debate. I endorse only one, the conversion of nuclear energy from weapons to peaceful use, but even this must be periodically scrutinized. Old hogs must be routinely slaughtered.
I know that there is a greater turn over of decision makers in the Russian Duma than in the US Congress. Old hogs must be kicked out of the food trough.
IMHO, the US must end our energy regulation as it now exists. It does not work. The bureaucrats are not responsible for costs, the financial types seek to maximize profit, and our technocrats are in the middle, with zero power and total technical responsibility. The result, after two generations, is litigious chaos. If we continue the status quo, our nation will not survive.
“All alternate energy technologies are inherently costly.”
I suspect that with regards to this, you are no dummy. Perhaps you could explain better than I how the cost of something ( alternate energy technologies in this case) is a measure of the resources needed to produce it. For the vast majority of things energy is the biggest resource consumed in production. Thus the cost of anything is a measure of the energy needed to produce it.
Inherently costly means inherently energy inefficient. Using more costly methods would actually be more detrimental to ‘the environment’ than hydrocarbons.
Yes, on the big points. No on the little one.
The trivial problem – efficiency. It is important for apples and apples, but less so between differing technologies. An explanatory example: Assume we invent a 100% efficient carbon burning energy generating machine. (They will come after us with butter fly nets, this is impossible.) The bad news; assume it only can burn diamonds, no other form of carbon works. Keep your day job.
The big point – cost. Cost is vital to all life sustaining technologies, and the sole measure, in a free economy, is price. What will it cost me? There are many slick hucksters who hide real costs so engineers invented a term, “all in costs” (first cost, fuel costs, maintenance costs, etc), and spread it over the life of the profit making investment. For alternate energy systems, which are pushed by government, their costs are transferred to the taxpayer, via various accounting tricks, e.g mandated purchases, grants, etc. Your light bill is small but your taxes, or deficits (your grand kids taxes) go up. Since energy is ubiquitous, in every aspect of advanced society, if energy costs increase, all marginal investments, and jobs, die off. Poverty and industrial weakness, is the certain long term result.
The common weakness of all alternative energy technologies is that they are very expensive for base loaded supply. This is not due to scaling issues, or maturing R&D, the inherent technical processes are lousy. Barring another Einstein, they will always be lousy.
The cheapest means of generating electricity, after a century of refining the technology, sits on two fuels, carbon and uranium. Currently some 90% of the costs of generation are mandated by government regulations, and the trend is upward. The cost of power plants under these rules became so expensive, the government cost regulators, normally state PUCs, would not permit the prices to passed on to the customers, for the gold plated systems. America quit building power plants (except government plants which rely on loop holes.)
This up and down conflict, regulatory costs landing on the economy, is killing us. It has driven our heavy industry (energy intense users) off shore. We no longer can make things at home.
The life or death decision before us is whether to next regulate the primary reaction of carbon combustion; it produces CO2. No one knows how to price CO2. If it is bad, hence heavily penalized, carbon is no longer a useful fuel. Since 85+% of all our energy comes from carbon, your day job and millions of others will cease to make money. You will be terminated.
Where most people get confused is the concept of capital amortization and maintenance. If the energy is free, why isn’t the electricity? Most people are shocked to learn that less than half of their electric bill goes to pay for energy. All those poles and wires and stuff don’t get put up and repaired and replaced for free. If people would just get that concept, the issues with “free” renewables would be a little more obvious.
An excellent point. The price, of electricity, or any continuously supplied commodity must include a location, acceptable delivery condition, and some agreed reliability standard, typically at a switch, or meter on the wall. The smart grid is installing, at enormous cost, meters which give the utility the unilateral ability to shut off appliances in your home. The appliance will cost a great deal more for the internal circuitry. You have no say, and must pay for this implicit changed agreement. This provides controlled outages, appliance by appliance, instead of district by district. It forestalls building power plants, the main objective.
This allows the same politician who rails against the power plant, from standing against the fury of voters who live in black out conditions. It is a far lower quality of service at a higher price. Is this smart? Or duplicitous?
The Oregon Petition is a document signed by 31,487 American scientists who believe that AGW is junk science. The issue is not settled.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Also, the best book I’ve read on the subject is Ian Wishart’s well-researched and comprehensive book, “Air Con.”
There’s also the NIPCC, the Non-Governmental Independent Panel on Climate Change that includes prominent scientists:
http://www.nipccreport.org/about/about.html
Glad you posted the link. I was going to. I have two friends who signed this petition, which has been around, I believe, since 1998. I’ve posted the petition on various websites for quite a few years and AGW-lovers always find a way to debunk it – some of the people on there are dead, there are well-known movie stars on it who say they didn’t sign it, and the biggest one of all — this petition was sent around to all these scientists with their names already on it and they were supposed to remove their names if they believed in global warming. Wha? My friends said they signed it and I’ve never found them to be mendacious.Oh, I almost forgot…………. one rather rabid liberal even accused me of lying about my two friends.
Please consider my first sentence, repeated here, “I have a list of 70+ senior PhDs, Professor Emeritus, Departments Heads, etc. from leading Universities and Laboratories, all over the world who have signed a common statement that man’s combustion of carbon is not causing major damage to the climate.” And my disclaimer; I am a dummy in climatology. I signed the petition due to obvious technical weaknesses that existed at the time, and the fact that coal combustion would be severely challenged by AGW, a societal disaster in my expertise, energy engineering. But the key truth is comprehension of science. There are perhaps 100 – 200 true experts on the planet in this post doctoral new field of study. I list 70+. The rest of us, including Al Gore, DO NOT COUNT. Our technical assessment has no worth.
Another global warming skeptic, Dr Tim Ball, studied the temperature records , kept by The Hudson’s Bay Company since the 1700′s. He graphed the rise and fall of temperature for almost 280 years. This is hard data, still available today at the Manitoba Archives. He concluded that temperature rises and falls, within a consistent range. He surmised that sunspots were possibly responsible. Another Canadian voice that needs to be heeded!
Don’t forget Bjorn Lomborg, he was one of the early flag raisers on this supposed scientific finding.
Until the average citizen understands the implications of post normal science as it pertains to policy, we will have al sorts of environmental ‘false flag’ operations that are accepted at face value.
“With the exception of Alberta Senator Grant Mitchell — who asserted that “to believe these arguments is to believe some kind of strange conspiracy theory” —committee members appeared open to the scientists’ testimonies.”
Earth to Senator Grant Mitchell: It is a giant conspiracy. Read the second batch of climategate e-mails. The AGW proponents in the e-mails are not scientists, they are lying thugs who conspire to hide data and models from critics.
“The so-called Climategate emails confirmed the reality of bias and cronyism in the IPCC process. … IPCC Assessments are guaranteed merely to repeat and reinforce a set of foregone conclusions that make up the party line.”
Fact. Irrefutable cold hard fact.
An informative presentation from a French geophysicist “too old to be bought”
“clouds/cosmic rays are not in any of the models proposed by the IPCC…changes in ionization of cloud cover and its direct relationship to UV levels are completely missing from the IPCC model…the IPCC report is not falsifiable, therefore it is not scientific”
It is not for nothing that some reputable scientists refused to append their signatures to the IPCC reports.
Even Canada is more enlightened than we are. What a damn deal.
The Canadian government believed this wholeheartedly just like the U.S. and practically every other country. This was not a unilateral belief, it was (is) a universal belief. Lord Monckton (UK)has been around the world trying to tell people they’re nuts (not in those words) for believing this hoax. I believe he was even at CPAC a few years ago with his story. I’ve seen him on the internet numerous times and also read his essay on global warming.
I’d imagine this will make real estate developers in the Gulf State region happy. Florida was 3 times larger than it is today during the last major ice age. As well as the rats; the island of Anguilla had rats the size of large dogs.
“…the island of Anguilla had rats the size of large dogs”
Well, nowadays we have liberals the size of human beings, so I think things were better during the last glacial period.
Yayz to the Canadians! Bacon and beer clears the head, indeed!
It looks, oddly, as if these “Global Warming/Climate Change(!)” people are expending efforts, which, if successful, will benefit…….The Peoples Republic of China, which is having nothing to do with demands to put stultifying and disastrous regulations on the use of fossil fuels in industry and commercial enterprises. Any diminution of fuel use by non-Chinese entities will be immediately absorbed by Chinese purchases. Note that the latest Canadian tar sands resources are being observed by hopeful Chinese eyes, wishing for a successful campaign in the U.S. against the proposed Keystone pipeline from Canada to Houston. Only today, there was a story about diminishing supplies of crude from Mexico and Venezuela, resulting in unused capacity in the Houston refineries.
There is more than meets the eye in these issues and controversies.
Remember the “smog” in days gone by?
So many in London Town did die,
They couldn’t breath clean fresh air,
For smoke from chimney’s polluted there.
The “Clean Air Act” came into force,
For people this was time to rejoice,
To laugh once more, feel free to breathe,
To suck in the cool air caught in the breeze.
To walk without fear of bumping into another,
To laugh and joke as if with brother to brother,
To actually “see” where one is walking,
Not to think that there is someone “stalking”.
Government had decreed something should be done,
Common sense prevailed, laws had been won,
Not simply to pay more in taxes, to spin or lie,
But to find another way of the saving of lives.
Not for them in those days of old,
That “it’s” the death of the planet” they were sold,
That the earth is running out of time,
Before that happens your money be mine.
Nay, for in those days so long ago now,
Politicians acted. They told you how
They would make a law that would benefit all,
Not simply obey those others that called.
They listened to scientists old and new
For surely they would know what to do?
Some looked into the far distant past
To see what happened, how the World changed so fast.
But there is a pattern if you look at the World,
How the land was joined up, in times of old,
Gradually, over millions and millions of years,
Land mass changed without too many fears.
The sea has risen over the fullness of time,
Cut into the land and will continue that line,
The earth will grow colder and then hotter once more,
It has done so many, many times before.
“Waste” must be curbed, of that there’s no doubt,
For places to fill, are indeed running out,
But ‘fines’, and prison when folk do wrong
Is making far too much of a dance and a song.
For the people will no longer believe what you say,
You Politicians will have had your day,
Today’s politicians seem to want only one thing,
More and more of our money in the ‘pot’ to you bring.
But our money too is fast running out,
“Be environmentally friendly” you may scream and shout,
But so many flaws in the laws you have made,
Not one of which will this planet save.
The real problem is what peolpe don;t see. We now have 7 billion people on this planet.We are a cancer taking away the earth’s energy and land. We are creating the warming with the asphalt and the cutting down the trees for more room for invading 7 billion cancer cells. We need to cut down the population.
David, not to be rude, but, just kill yourself. The Earth will have one less ‘cancer cell’ and you won’t have to worry about this ‘Armageddon’. And the Earth’s energy comes from the Sun. Maybe that is the cause of ‘globull warming’, old Sol, and not the gasoline which powers my truck, lawn mower, leaf blower, etc.
With respect to the gibberish about asphalt, does this negate the bogus argument about ‘greenhouse gases’? I always find that load of BS to be most humorous considering the FACT that water vapor is the MOST ABUNDANT greenhouse gas. And yet, the left has no ‘plan’ to curtail this most copious of ‘death gases’. Perhaps, the Senate can hatch a plan to legislate the Sun to tone down the amount of infrared radiation it emits. Or face a reduction in the amount of taxpayer dollars it frivolously wastes to vacation in Australia during the winter months here in the Northern Hemisphere.
David, you’re behind the times. Suzuki beat ya to it: we’re “maggots”. Look it up.
By the way, how big is your house and how many do you own?
First: Thanks Anne. Kids these days have no clue. I remember when the Houston ship channel had a nice orange hue to it and my mom gave us wet towels to breath thru for our morning walk to school. The Houston ship channel is now a destination for sports fisherman and of course no kids have to wear an improvised gas mask to go outside.
Second: There was a recently published scientific paper that throws a wrench in the climate equation. The results of the study concluded that clouds have no net effect of warming or cooling the atmosphere. Quite simply put, It was determined that clouds cooled the atmosphere close to the Earth. But, due to reflection of cosmic rays from the clouds an equal amount of lost radiation was scattered back into the upper atmosphere. Taking the upper and lower atmosphere as a whole, there was no net loss in comsic energy.
Which when you think about it… Makes absolute scientific sense.
If you worry about the environment
Look up at the sun in the sky,
Politicians would have you think of CO2’s
Environmentally, I don’t know why.
Perhaps we take for granted
The sun that shines each day,
Even though at times it hides
Behind those clouds of grey.
But what if the sun burnt itself out?
What would warm us up then?
What if it exploded? Blew itself up?
Turned the day into night again?
Just suppose it fell right down
Out of sight of our earth one day?
To warm up another planet
What would politicians then say?
As the earth started to freeze right over,
In a permanent kind of way,
No more ‘hundred year’ cycles
We knew of, in ‘global warming’ days.
What happened to environmental tax
We paid to save our world?
Where is the “global warming” now?
As my story starts to unfold?
There is no doubt we need to recycle
In this easy come and go world we live,
We take resources out of the ground
But nothing in its place we give.
But to be spied upon, bugs in bins?
Be watched and tagged is no fun,
Make a mistake, an on the spot fine?
Its what a dictator would have done?
I have read the CO2 calculator,
Worked out what is expected of us,
The importance of greenhouse gases
Of dry-ice, and the need to fuss.
But without our sun, moon and stars
The earth will surely die,
These tales of carbon emissions
Surely it wasn’t all a lie?