The Australian prime minister Tony Abbott is renowned for calling climate science 'absolute crap'.
By 2022, could Australia have many 'Lego-like' small nuclear reactors in operation, dotted about the nation?
It seems to me that the IPCC may well be coming to the view that if it is to survive, it will have to have more than the mitigation arrow in its quiver.
Minutes later came the unforgiving sound of peeling metal followed by a surge of over one million litres of highly acidic uranium slurry from the buckled and broken number one leach tank.
With good reason, former Prime Minister Paul Keating has condemned the planned changes as outrageous.
To be fair, useful work is being done in some countries to tighten nuclear security. But it's too little and too slow, and the concept of nuclear security is too narrowly defined.
From forests in Queens to wetlands in China, planners and scientists are promoting a new approach that incorporates experiments into landscape restoration projects to determine what works to the long-term benefit of nature and what does not.
Downplaying the principal source of forestry knowledge and selective use of 'experts' fans perceptions of the ABC's Green-Left agenda.
'...If our population grows to 35-40 million and climate change constrains food production, we can see years where we will import more food than we export...'
Hollywood takes a Christian fable and turns it on its head as a warning to those who would manage creation.
Reports concentrated on claims there was no evidence of adverse health effects, neglecting to note '...the body of evidence...is small and poor quality'.
The Senate committee report
Paying polluters to halt global warming? signifies only sound and fury, like most parliamentary theatre.