The recent controversy

Climate denial versus climate science

A speech at the launch of Requiem for a Species
Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, 24 March 2010
Clive Hamilton

The attack on climate science in recent times has been orchestrated, relentless, and

effective. Although it has reached fever pitch over the last six months, the campaign
has been underway since the mid-1990s when conservative think tanks in the United
States teamed up with fossil fuel corporations to develop a strategy to cast doubt on
the scientific consensus. As is now well-documented, they consciously adopted the
tactics developed by the tobacco companies to prevent or slow down legislative
restrictions on smoking.

What have been the elements of this campaign to discredit science?

One of the most recent and disturbing developments has been the campaign of cyberbullying
directed at climate scientists, a phenomenon I recently detailed in a series of
articles on the ABC website The Drum1 Each time a climate scientist is in the news
he or she receives a torrent of aggressive, abusive and, at times, threatening emails.
These emails are mostly anonymous. Some are spontaneous but others appear to be
orchestrated. The purpose of the cyber-bullying is to upset and intimidate the targets,
making them reluctant to participate further in the climate change debate or to change
what they say.

Journalists and campaigners too are targetted by cyber-bullies. Some have had to call
in the police to deal with serious threats.

The emergence of an army of aggressive denialist bloggers indicates that climate
denialism has made a radical shift in the last couple of years. It can no longer be
understood as lobbying funded by the fossil fuel companies but has become linked to
a populist political movement.

Nevertheless, the older, more organised arm of denialism has been emboldened and
has begun to use more risky tactics, including black operations. The hacking into
computers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia is
only part of a more extensive campaign of black ops organised by elements of the
denial industry in the run-up to the Copenhagen meeting and since.

Others include break-ins to the offices of climate scientists,2 an attempt to infiltrate
the computer system at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis at
the University of Victoria by two people posing as technicians,3 and industrial
espionage directed at US green groups.4

The rage of denialist bloggers is stoked by a number of internet sites around which
they congregate electronically. In my ABC The Drum articles I mention the sites and
opinion pieces of Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair, along with websites operated by sceptic
Joanne Nova, and the Queensland farmers’ organisation Agmates.5

On these sites discussion of the “global warming conspiracy” seamlessly segues into a
hodge-podge of right-wing populist grievances and causes, including defending rural
property rights, the martyrdom of farming hunger-striker Peter Spencer, the errors of
the Club of Rome, blood on the hands of Rachel Carson for causing DDT to be
banned, the evils of Al Gore, and the United Nations’ grand plan to dominate the world.

Vilification of climate scientists and others engaged in the climate debate is not
confined to the nether-world of the Internet. Arguably, the most influential source of
misrepresentation and ridicule is the Murdoch broadsheet, the Australian, which not
only turns over its opinion pages to every denialist no matter how loopy but regularly
features news stories that grossly misrepresent climate science. The Bureau of Meteorology no longer bothers trying to correct the distortions as its expertise carries
no weight with the paper.6

The international campaign against climate science has taken a sinister turn in the last
weeks. Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe has called for climate scientists
associated with the IPCC to be investigated for criminal violations. A document
prepared by his staff on the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
claims scientists mentioned in emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
at the University of East Anglia are guilty of manipulating data and obstructing its

It lists federal laws they may have violated and names 17 climate scientists—some of
the most eminent in the world—who Inhofe’s staff claim should be investigated for
possible criminal prosecution.

The accusation of criminality against leading climate scientists takes the denialist
campaign of harassment and intimidation to new depths, and immediately conjures up
images of McCarthyism. Last November, Inhofe’s fellow Republican Congressman
James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin wrote to the IPCC demanding that scientists
whose names appear in the stolen CRU emails be blacklisted from all further work
with the IPCC.7

Think tanks

The raw material the feeds the populist anger is generated overwhelmingly by a
network of conservative think tanks in part funded by Big Carbon. These links, which
have been heavily documented,8 are close enough to provoke the Royal Society to
take the unprecedented step of writing to Exxon Mobil asking the company to desist from funding anti-science groups.

One of the more important conduits between the fossil fuel corporations and the think
tanks is the Washington-based Atlas Economic Research Foundation. Atlas supports
financially a network of some 200 libertarian think tanks around the world, including (according to an investigation by US magazine Mother Jones 9) the Institute of Public
Affairs and the Centre for Independent Studies in Australia.

Atlas co-sponsored the Heartland Institute’s climate sceptic conference in Washington
last June attended by a number of prominent Australian sceptics, including Senator
Fielding.10 The Heartland Institute has received funding from Exxon Mobil and earlier
received funding from Philip Morris to campaign against smoking restrictions.

Right-wing populism

The various arms of the denialist war on climate science—the bloggers and letter
writers; the right wing columnists like Andrew Bolt, Christopher Pearson and
Miranda Devine; the Murdoch broadsheets (The Australian, The Times and The Wall
Street Journal); and the conservative think tanks—are united by one factor, a loathing
of environmentalism. Environmentalism is variously seen to be the enemy of
individual freedom, an ideology of smug elites, an attack on capitalism and
consumerism, and the vanguard of world government.

For denialists, accepting climate science would mean admitting that unrestrained
capitalism is jeopardising our future, that comprehensive government intervention is
needed, and that the environment movement was right all along. Accepting these is
intolerable, and it is easier for them to reject climate science.

As I explain in Requiem for a Species, politically climate denialism represents a
backlash against the advances begun by the social movements of the 1960s and their
destabilisation of traditional social structures and beliefs, including that of the right of
humans to exploit the natural world, which helps explain why its activists are
overwhelmingly older. Raging against climate science fits perfectly with the
worldview, style and audience demographic of populist shock-jocks like Alan Jones,11
Australia’s answer to Rush Limbaugh.

In the book I describe how in the 1990s US Republican Party tacticians set out to link
belief in human-induced climate change with left-wing beliefs, that is, to characteris escience as ideology. It was this process that led to Senator Nick Minchin’s notorious
declaration last November that, after the collapse of communism, the left embraced
environmentalism as a new religion.12

So climate denialism has been absorbed by an older and wider political movement,
sometimes called right-wing populism, which is consistent with the view that it is
strongest in Queensland. In the United States it is perfectly natural that Sarah Palin
has taken up the denialist cause and that Christopher Monckton will soon be
addressing a Tea Party rally.

In February the South Dakota legislature passed a resolution calling for “balanced
teaching of global warming in the public schools of South Dakota”, the type of
resolution that has urged the teaching of creationism alongside evolution.13 The draft
resolution noted there are “a variety of climatological, meteorological [and]
astrological” factors that affect the climate. Ian Plimer, who made his name attacking
creationism, now counts these people and Steve Fielding among his political allies.

In recent years, the denial movement has been joined by some hard-line conservative
Christian groups, including the notorious Catch the Fire Ministries and its witchhunting
pastor Danny Nalliah.14 These groups were heavily involved in the lobbying
to have Tony Abbott elected as Liberal Party leader.15

As this suggests, becoming a denialist does not follow from carefully weighing up the
evidence (that is, true scepticism) but from associating oneself with a certain cultural
outlook and taking on an identity defined in opposition to a caricature of those who
support action on climate change. It is the energy in this wider movement that has
seen climate denialism morphing into a new form of political extremism.

Meanwhile back on the planet

Unfortunately, the chorus of declarations that the climate scientists got it wrong has
had no impact on the earth’s climate. Indeed, those who study the climate itself rather than the bogus debate in the newspapers and the blogosphere understand that climate
science and popular perceptions of climate science are diverging rapidly, not least
because the news on the former is getting worse.

Soon after the 2007 release of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, those familiar
with the science began to say that as a result of the consensus process and the natural
caution of scientists, the Fourth Assessment Report had seriously understated the risks
from climate change, particularly in its selection of scenarios and its estimates of
likely sea-level rise.16

Let me mention of a number of developments in climate science that have been
published or reported in the five or six months since the leaking of the “Climategate”
emails. It is evidence that warming is more alarming than previously thought yet
which has been buried in the avalanche of confected stories claiming that climate
scientists have exaggerated.

    • We have just had the warmest decade on record.17
    • A new study concludes that an average warming of 3-4°C, previously thought
      to be associated with carbon dioxide concentrations of 500-600 ppmv, is now
      believed to be associated with concentrations of only 360-420 ppmv, a range
      that covers the current concentration of 385 ppmv.18 If confirmed by further
      research, the implications of this are terrifying.
    • While news reports allege glacial melting has been exaggerated, the best
      evidence is that the rate of disappearance of glaciers is accelerating. The
      University of Zurich’s World Glacier Monitoring Service reports that “new
      data continues the global trend in strong ice loss over the past few decades”.19
    • The rate of flow into the sea of Greenland and Antarctic glaciers is
      accelerating, adding to sea-level rise.20 This augments the evidence that
      cautiousness led the IPCC to significant underestimate the likely extent of sea-level rise in the 21st century. The East Antarctic ice-sheet, previously believed
      to be stable, has now begun to melt on its coastal fringes.21 The West Antarctic
      ice-sheet continues its rapid melt.
    • Sharply rising temperature in the Arctic have, over the last five years, caused a
      rapid increase in the amount of methane being emitted from melting
      permafrost.22 Over the last 50 years in the James Bay region of Canada, the
      limit of the Arctic permafrost has retreated northwards by 130 kilometres.23

So over the last six months, a vast gulf has opened up between the media-stoked
perception that the climate science has been exaggerated and the research-driven
evidence that the true situation is worse than we thought. Just when we should be
urging immediate and deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions, the public is
being lulled into disbelief by a sustained and politically driven assault on the
credibility of climate science.

Climate reality

Let me now summarise the situation that humanity now confronts. (I set it out in
detail in Chapter 1 of Requiem for a Species.)

It is not widely understood that carbon dioxide persists in the atmosphere for
centuries, so our future will depend on the total amount we humans put there over the
next several decades. On top of past emissions, the total amount depends on two
critical factors—the year in which global emissions reach their peak, and how quickly
they fall thereafter. Using the so-called budget approach, a number of research groups
have recently done some very sobering calculations. Here, as in my book, I follow the
analysis by Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows.24

Let’s make some optimistic assumptions about the peaking year and the rate of subsequent emissions decline and see what the implications are. Firstly, let’s assume
global emissions peak in 2020, so that after that year any increase in emissions from poor countries must be more than offset by declines in rich countries. It must be
admitted, especially after the failure at Copenhagen that this looks very unlikely.


Second, let’s assume that global emissions fall by 3% p.a. thereafter until they reach a
floor, the minimum necessary to supply the world’s population with food. Because
emissions needed for food production will decline more slowly, a 3% overall decline
means a 4% p.a. decline in energy and industrial emissions.

Of course, we cannot expect poor countries to cut their emissions as fast as rich ones,
so a global decline of 3% p.a. translates into a 6-7% p.a. decline in energy and
industrial emissions in rich countries like Australia.

Can this be done? It would certainly be unprecedented. The Stern report provides
some historical examples for comparison.

      • In the 1990s Britain’s “dash for gas” aimed to replace coal-fired electricity. It
        caused the nation’s total emissions to fall by 1% p.a. for a decade.
      • France’s nuclear program over 25 years from the late 1970s led to a 40-fold
        increase in nuclear power making the country 80% dependent on nuclear
        energy for electricity. Over the period emissions from the electricity sector fell
        by 6% p.a., but Frances total emissions fell by only 1% p.a.
      • After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia’s total emissions in 1990s fell
        by 5.2% p.a., which is close to the rate of decline needed. However, the sharp
        decline in emissions tracked the collapse of the economy, with GDP halving
        and widespread social misery ensuing.

Nevertheless, let’s be optimistic and assume global emissions peak in 2020 and
decline by 3% p.a. thereafter, with rich country emissions falling by 6-7%. Where
would that leave us? Would it be enough to stabilise the concentration of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere at 450 ppm, the level associated with warming of 2°C?

The answer is no. Nor would it be enough even to stabilise at 550 ppm; it would in
fact see concentrations reach 650 ppm, a level that translates into 4°C of warming.
That’s an average of 4°C across the world. As oceans warm more slowly, an average
of 4°C means warming of 5-6°C on land, and even higher closer to the poles.

This analysis has been replicated, with small variations, by other groups. A recent
report by the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WGBU) assessed what it
would take to have a good chance of remaining within the 2ºC guardrail.25 The study
concluded that even a delay in the peaking year to 2015 means that global emissions
must fall at a rate close to 5 per cent per annum. Any further delay makes the target

Delaying the peak year even further to 2020 could necessitate global emissions
reduction rates of up to 9% per year – i.e. reductions on an almost
inconceivable scale, entailing technological feats and social sacrifices on a
scale comparable to those of the Allied mobilization during the Second World

So limiting warming to 2ºC is impossible; we will be lucky if it can be limited to 4ºC.

Some impacts of 4°C warmingSome impacts of 4°C warming

Warming approaching 4°C is almost uncharted territory. The world would be hotter
than at any time for 15 million years, yet this is now regarded as the most likely future
before the end of the century by leading climate scientists. As is apparent from Figure
1, the climate system would cross several tipping points and trigger various feedback
effects that would render the climate system beyond human control.

What are the expected impacts? I don’t plan to dwell on the likely impacts of a 4°C
world, except to refer to the well-known “burning embers” diagram. In Figure 2, the
left half shows the best estimate the risks at various degrees of warming as at 2001.
The right half shows the assessment of risks updated on the basis of new research in
2009. Redder areas indicate higher risks.27

Figure 1 Tipping points associated with various degrees of warming, and
probability distribution around estimated warming already committed to (2.4°C)

Source: Ramanathan & Feng (2008)

Figure 2 The “burning embers” diagram showing 2001 and revised 2009
assessments of risks of impacts associated with varying degrees of warming

Source: Richardson et al. (2009)

Until recently we thought we were reasonably comfortably located in the lower left
quarter, i.e. that 2°C was an achievable aim and the impacts of 2°C warming were
worrying but manageable. With a better understanding of the higher risks of even 2°C
of warming, and the realisation that 2°C is unattainable and we will be lucky not to
reach 4°C, we suddenly find ourselves in the top right hand quarter of the diagram.

In Chapter 7 of Requiem, I describe a conference I attended in Oxford in September
2009 at which many of the world’s leading climate scientists discussed for the first
time what a world at 4°C would be like. Because the nations of the world have been
so slow to act and emissions have risen to such a high level, the conference organisers
wrote that now the only choice is between extreme rates of emissions reduction and
extreme impacts of a hot world. Everyone at the conference agreed that expecting 4°C
of warming is “realistic” rather than “alarmist”. No wonder the scientists report
despair, frustration and sleeplessness.

Even with optimistic assumption about the peak year for global emissions and rates of
emissions reductions thereafter, the best estimate is for warming to reach 4°C in the
2070s or 2080s, well within the life-spans of children born today. This would
eventually bring an ice-free planet. And once the large ice-sheets begin to melt it will
be impossible to stop them.

These facts must cause us to rethink entirely how the future will play out. The
presence of feedback effects and tipping points calls into question some of the most
fundamental assumptions of climate change negotiations, including the belief that we
can “overshoot” to, say, 550 ppm and then work back to 450 ppm (the path advocated
in the Stern and Garnaut reports), that greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere can be stabilised at some level, and the belief that we can adapt to some
given degree of warming.

Psychological adaptation

If the Earth seems to be locked on a path leading to a very different climate, a new
and much less stable era lasting many centuries before natural processes eventually
establish some sort of equilibrium, how do we respond psychologically to the
scientific warnings? A paper by Tim Kasser and myself28 draws on psychological
research into the various “coping strategies” we might use to defend against or
manage the unpleasant emotions associated with “waking up” to the dangers of a
warming globe. The emotions include fear, anxiety, guilt, anger, depression and
helplessness. The coping strategies fall into three broad types.

Denial strategies aim primarily at suppressing anxiety associated with predictions of
climate disruption by not allowing the facts to be accepted in the conscious mind. By
denying the reality of the facts, no emotions need be felt. “Climate sceptics” actively
reject all or most of the main propositions established by climate science. It seems that
for many such individuals, acceptance of climate science and the response it calls for
conflict with one or more of their fundamental beliefs.

This can give rise to “cognitive dissonance”, the uncomfortable feeling people have
when they begin to understand that something they believe to be true is contradicted
by evidence. The theory was developed by Leon Festinger in the 1950s after
observing a religious cult that gathered around a woman named Marian Keech. Keech
had received messages from an extraterrestrial being predicting the end of the world
on 21 December 1954. Believers would be rescued by a space ship just before the

Festinger had infiltrated the cult and was inside Keech’s house on the appointed day.
The news media gathered on the front lawn. When the world did not end on the
appointed day, rather than adjust their beliefs cult members proselytised even more
fervently. Climate deniers seem to become more active as the scientific evidence for
warming mounts. Climate denial is only superficially an argument about science.

A less vociferous form of denial—casual denial—is engaged in by many members of
the public. Anxiety can be reduced simply by restricting exposure to distressing
information, such as by skipping news stories about climate change or disengaging
from conversations. Various inner narratives are deployed to dismiss the evidence

“I’ll worry about it when the scientists make up their minds.”

“Environmentalists always exaggerate.”

The willingness to use any reason to dismiss the evidence has recently been cynically
exploited by the anti-science editors at The Australian. After a speech by Penny Wong
on sea-level rise, on 19th February 2010 the newspaper carried a front-page story with
a huge photo of a bronzed Aussie bloke named Lee at Bondi beach. Lee said he’s
been coming to Bondi for 30 years and had not noticed any change.

Most people do not deny climate science; instead we adopt what can be called
maladaptive coping strategies, those in which we acknowledge and accept the facts
about global warming up to a point, but cope by blunting the emotional impact. We do
so using a number of techniques.We might “de-problematising” the threat by making its scale seem smaller, or use
“distancing” by emphasising the time lapse before the consequences of warming are

“Humans have solved these sorts of problems before.”

“It won’t affect me much.”

Or we might divert attention from anxious thoughts and unpleasant emotions by
engaging in minor behaviour changes (like changing light-bulbs) that mollify feelings
of helplessness or guilt.

I caught myself doing this when the Haiti earthquake occurred. I could not watch or
listen to the news, turning away and changing the subject. Then I made a donation,
after which I felt that I could deal with the emotions the images elicited.

Blame-shifting is another strategy. This is a form of moral disengagement whereby
people disavow their responsibility for the problem or the solution. Derogation of outgroups
can be used to solidify one’s sense of self and ward off threats to it.

“Australia accounts for less than 2% of global emissions.”

“China builds a new coal-fired power plant every week.”

Or we can cultivate indifference. Apathy is typically understood as meaning the
absence of feeling, but it can often reflect a suppression of feeling that serves a useful
psychological function.

“If I don’t care I won’t feel bad.”

Wishful thinking is a further strategy. Cultivating “benign fictions” can be an
adaptive response to an often unfriendly world. Yet among benign fictions it is
important to distinguish between illusions that respond and adapt to reality and
delusions that are held despite the evidence.

Against these maladaptive strategies aimed at deflecting or reducing unpleasant
feelings, adaptive coping strategies are deployed when one accepts both the facts
and the accompanying emotions, and then tries to act on the basis of both. They are
adaptive in the sense of promoting psychological adjustment to new circumstances
and stimulating appropriate actions. There are three broad types.

First, expressing and controlling emotions, such as anger, depression and despair,
may be a healthy response to anticipated climate change. However, remaining
indefinitely within these feelings can be debilitating, leading to apathy and
resignation, so the objective is to manage and transcend the emotions.

Secondly, to overcome fear of the unknown, one healthy response is to find out more
about climate change and form a clearer picture of the future. Adopting problem-solving
might impel people to work with others so as to prepare for a changed
climate. Taking action is an effective response to depression.

Thirdly, developing a new value orientation is a means of adapting to climate change
in a healthy way. Studies show that when given brief reminders of their own mortality
people are more likely to seek out means of enhancing their self-esteem by attaching
greater importance to money, image and status. These studies seem to conflict with
the fact that people who have traumatic experiences, such as a near-death experience,
often discard materialistic and self-centred pursuits and adopt a more compassionate
and reflective worldview. This phenomenon has led to “post-traumatic growth

Studies have shown that while fleeting thoughts about death tend to promote more
self-enhancing and materialistic behaviours, more conscious and careful processing of
death has been shown to bring about the opposite reaction—adoption of goals that are
less materialistic and more pro-social, a shift away from more superficial pursuits in
favour of more meaningful ones.

What is the extent of the use of these three broad types of coping—denial,
maladaptive and adaptive? Evidence in Western countries indicates that a minority of
the population resists or ignores the facts of climate science, while a majority seems
mainly to use maladaptive coping strategies. Another minority, which includes many
climate scientists and some environmental campaigners, has made the transition to
adaptive coping through acceptance and action.

The Plague

We can gain deeper insight into our resistance to the facts about climate change and
their implications from an unexpected source, Albert Camus’ 1947 novel The
Plague.29 You might remember that it is set in Oran, a town of some 200,000 people
in Algeria. Bubonic plague breaks out and the town is cut off from the rest of the
world for months on end as thousands succumb to horrible deaths. Bernard Rieux, the
doctor and protagonist, is the first to recognise that the mass die-off of rats and the
strange symptoms of his patients meant the plague

As the story unfolds, Camus sees into the strategies used by the townspeople to deny
or avoid the meaning of the plague. First they tell themselves the deaths are due to
something else. Then they tell each other the epidemic will be short-lived and life will
soon return to normal. Later, they cling to superstitions and prophecies, unearthing old
texts that seem to promise deliverance or protection. They begin to drink more wine
because a rumour has circulated that wine kills the plague bacillus. Then, when drunk,
they offer optimistic opinions into the night air.

As the story unfolds, Camus sees into the strategies used by the townspeople to deny
or avoid the meaning of the plague. First they tell themselves the deaths are due to
something else. Then they tell each other the epidemic will be short-lived and life will
soon return to normal. Later, they cling to superstitions and prophecies, unearthing old
texts that seem to promise deliverance or protection. They begin to drink more wine
because a rumour has circulated that wine kills the plague bacillus. Then, when drunk,
they offer optimistic opinions into the night air.

And a Dionysian spirit arrives to wipe away the gloom. “At the beginning, when they
thought it was a sickness like any other, religion had its place” wrote Camus

But when they saw that it was serious, they remembered pleasure. So in the
dusty, blazing dusk all the anguish imprinted on their faces during the day
resolves itself into a sort of crazed excitement, an uneasy freedom that enflames the whole population30

So how should we respond personally to the grim news about global warming? After
months of the deadly epidemic everyone trapped in Oran fears it will never end. Rieux
works tirelessly against overwhelming odds. He knows that any victories he has will
only be temporary. “But that is not a reason to give up the struggle”, he tells his
friend; “… one must fight, in one way or another, and not go down on one’s knees”.31

Camus argued that the only way to maintain one’s integrity in such a situation is to
adopt what he called an “active fatalism”, in which “one should start to move forward,in the dark, feeling one’s way and trying to do good.” Camus was acutely aware of the
importance of hope—“how hard it must be to live only with what one knows and what
one remembers, and deprived of what one hopes”.32 It is why I argue in the last
chapter of Requiem that, in facing the facts before us, we must not succumb to apathy
but re-imagine a different future and begin to hope that it can be the best possible in
the new conditions.

1Clive Hamilton, “Bullying, lies and the rise of right-wing climate denial”, ABC The Drum, 22 February




5Clive Hamilton, “Who is orchestrating the cyber-bullying?”, ABC The Drum, 23 February 2010,



















24Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows, ‘Reframing the climate change challenge in light of post-2000
emission trends’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, The Royal Society, 2008

25German Advisory Council on Global Change (WGBU), Solving the Climate Dilemma: The Budget
Approach, WGBU, Berlin, 2009

26WGBU, Solving the Climate Dilemma

27Katherine Richardson et al., Synthesis Report, from the Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges &
Decisions conference, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, 2009, Figure 8

28Clive Hamilton and Tim Kasser, “Psychological Adaptation to the Threats and Stresses of a Four
Degree World”, A paper for “Four Degrees and Beyond” conference, Oxford University 28-30
September 2009


29With thanks to Nick Bellorini at Earthscan for suggesting the relevance of The Plague.

30Ibid., p. 93

31Ibid., pp. 98 & 102

31Ibid., pp. 176 & 225

Share :
© Copyright Clive Hamilton