On this day, December15 in 2009 those galaxy brains at the Daily Express ran a front cover “100 reasons why global warming is natural.”
Pricks.
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 387ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
The newspapers at this point were full of stories about climate change because the Copenhagen COP15 conference was underway and since 2006, a wave of climate activism and legislation had been happening. The Daily Express readers wanted to be able to dismiss it all as just another green hoax- god forbid it turned out that the hippies and the eco nuts were actually right. That would cause mental anguish in the tiny brains of Express readers.
Why this matters.
We need to remember just how how stupid and irresponsible the popular press has been on the question of climate change (for well understood reasons – grok the Propaganda Model of Herman and Chomsky).
What happened next?
The Daily Express has continued to be a newspaper by and for idiots.
On this day, December 14 in 1988 the New York TImes reports on joint Soviet/US committee
“The national science academies of the United States and the Soviet Union, warning that the earth’s ”ecological security” is now endangered, announced today the formation of a joint Committee on Global Ecology Concerns.
The new committee will identify and investigate threats to the global environment and report its conclusions, along with policy recommendations, to their Governments and to international organizations.”
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 351ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now, well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
By the end of 1988 everyone was talking the greenhouse effect, everyone wanted to say that they were taking the matter seriously, this included the Soviet Union which of course would begin to collapse the following year.
Why this matters.
This one really doesn’t, this is for historical interest only if you’re a geek like me and if you are get help.
What happened next?
The Soviet Union collapsed, the United States muscled the negotiations for a global climate treaty and made sure that nothing serious would be done.
A new campaign by an Australian climate organisation has raised eyebrows, with an…. ‘interesting’ … argument that because vegetables and fossil fuels both contain the element carbon, then fossil fuels are part of your healthy five a day. Or something.
The Completely Moronic Institute (CMI) has released an image that has been circulated widely on social media platforms as Musker (formerly known as Twitter).
The attempt to cover oil with the halo of healthy food has left some anti-everyone-dying-in-a-fiery-carbonated-apocalypse activists bewildered and wondering if April 1st has been brought forward.
Speaking on behalf of the Institute of the Australian Majority Bleakly Imperilled by Climate Chaos (IAMBIC) spokesperson Dan Dennis said
“The carrot is a favourite of mine;
While carbon is a deadly form of heat
To claim a link between the two is fine
… if you’re a fool whose biz is dying meat”
Contacted for comment, a CMI intern who would only give his initials and age (IQ, 65) said
“Well, we’re kinda hoping that nobody notices this is really just a re-tread of the whole “Greening of Planet Earth” meme that Western Fuels came out with 25 years ago to try to confuse people about the dangers of carbon dioxide build0up. We don’t really have two brain cells to rub together, or a single leg to stand on, so plagiarism is all we got.”
He continued
“Wait, did I say that or just think it?”
A detailed investigation (five second google image search) has confirmed this –
On this day, December 13th in 1984 for the Christian Science Monitor ran an article which covered some recent research into carbon dioxide build-up.
Its conclusion? Its conclusion has not aged well.
“the alarms often raised about melting the polar icecaps and flooding coastal cities are largely speculation. And the calls that have been made to ”do something now” to begin to restrict the burning of fossil fuels are rather premature.”
On this day the PPM was 345ppm Now it is 419ish- but see here for the latest.
Why this matters.
Find mid 1980s the question of future climate change caused by buildup of atmospheric carbon dioxide from man’s burning of oil, coal and gas was an infrequent but no longer unusual topic of conversation in the mass media on television and print media.
What happened next?
It would be another 4 years until the question of climate change burst onto the scene and became a regular feature of newspaper and print media and the denial campaigns started
On this day in 1967, Swedish diplomats proposed a big international conference on the (human) environment. It would happen, 4 and a half years later, in Stockholm…
“It was during this autumn of surging environmental awareness that three influential Swedes engaged with the United Nations—Inga Thorsson, Alva Myrdal and Sverker Åström—concluded that Sweden should pursue a UN conference on the human environment. To this end, a proposal was put forward at the [United Nations General Assembly] on December 13, 1967 by Börje Billner, Deputy Head of the Swedish UN Mission,”
Paglia, E. (2021) The Swedish initiative and the 1972 Stockholm Conference: the decisive role of science diplomacy in the emergence of global environmental governance. HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 8:2 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00681-x
Billner’s statement included this
“The impact of the technological revolution that is taking place around us is felt by all peoples, irrespective of their present technological level. It has far-reaching effects on the environment of man. The human body and the human mind are subjected to serious and ever-increasing inconveniences and dangers. These are caused by air pollution, water pollution, sulfur fall-out waste, etc. – in short by all the secondary effects related to the process of industrialization and urbanization”
The context was this – everyone was starting to get freaked out about possible global (as opposed to ‘merely’ local environmental issues.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide was roughly 322ppm (it’s now 418ish).
Why this matters
We’ve been talking about doing something for a very long time. It’s almost as if talking and knowledge isn’t the problem…
What happened next
The usual – a gabfest. It gave us UNEP, and also got the climate ball rolling…
On this day, December 12 in 1977, the UK government launched an(other) energy efficiency scheme because … they were embarrassed
“It was the visit of US President Jimmy Carter in May 1977 that brought matters to a head. Carter had just launched a major energy saving programme, and the Prime Minister, James Callaghan, did not want to be outdone. ACEC were asked to design a new programme, and with Prime Ministerial support Benn was able to “bang heads together” in Whitehall. On December 12th 1977, he announced a £470m, 4-year programme (worth £2.7bn today), with the aim of saving £700m pa (£4bn) and cutting energy demand by 10 %.”
(Mallaburn and Eyre, 2014)”
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 334ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
The UK government had already launched an energy efficiency scheme in 1974 which had achieved … not very much. All through the 70s there were concerns about energy – how much it would cost whether it was running out, whether you’ll be able to get hold of it and in the background for some people a small number at this point concerns about climate change
Why this matters.
We need to understand that energy efficiency is desperately unsexy and difficult it is much harder to pose with a hard hat and a hi-vis jacket in front of loft insulation than it is in front of new production facilities whether those are nuclear gas offshore wind whatever.
What happened next?
The Labour government was kicked out in 1979 and the new administration of Margaret Thatcher did nothing about energy efficiency and nothing about climate change even though that she herself was briefed on the issue in 1980.
On this day, December 11, 1975, German scientist Hermann Flohn addressed a number of Australian scientists at Monash University, Melbourne, as part of a conference about… climate change.
“Now if we allow man’s interference with climate to increase exponentially as it has done in recent years, we sooner or later come to a state where this 10% rises to 100%, resulting in continuous warming made by man superimposed on these natural fluctuations of cooling and warming. This would be a really dangerous situation in that in the Northern Hemisphere we have this extremely sensitive area of the Arctic sea-ice. The few people who have dealt with models of the sea-ice have the feeling that this is in fact an extremely sensitive system which will reflect very early and very substantially any sizeable warming of the Northern Hemisphere. The lifetime of individual ice floes is 5 or 10 years, certainly not more than 10 years, and once the ice is removed the present situation would not allow the reforming of permanent ice cover as we have it today. My feeling is that if man’s interference with the climatic system is uncontrolled for some decades, together with uncontrolled growth of energy use, sooner or later during the next century the warming will overwhelm natural factors which usually produce cooling. Then the Arctic sea-ice could disappear rather rapidly, some models say in a period of 10 years or less.”
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 331ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this – In 1974 legendary Australian civil servant Nugget Combs had convinced the Whitlam government to ask the Australian Academy of Sciences to investigate the possibility of climate change (this was partly in the context of the CIA report and US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger talking about potential food shortages). The AAS researched the matter and on this day in 1975 at Monash University Herman flown eminent German climatologist said the above.
Why this matters.
We really did know enough to be worried by the mid late 70s and to start acting on the fact that the climate issue did not hit the headlines until 1988 is a travesty but the fact that since 1988 human emissions have gone up by over 60% is beyond a travesty. It is the beginning of a nightmare, or rather the continuation and amplification of a nightmare.
What happened next?
The AAS report was released in early 1976. It sank without trace because it did not say “yes there most definitely is a problem” (to have done so would have been ahead of the evidence). And in any case, Australia was in political turmoil because the elected government of Gough Whitlam had been removed by John Kerr the governor-general (If this had happened in another country we would have talked about it being a CIA coup there have been more dead bodies but I digress).
On this day, December 11 in 1895, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius read his would-eventually-be-’famous’ paper On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground at the Swedish Academy of Science.
Hamblyn, R. 2009. The whistleblower and the canary: rhetorical constructions of climate change. Journal of Historical Geography, Vol. 35, pp.223-236
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 295ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
Why this matters
This has become the touchstone for “how long we’ve known” pieces.
What happened next
Arrhenius’ assumptions (and those whose work he drew on) were challenged by Angstrom et al. The idea that a build up of carbon dioxide could cause warming was thrown in the dustbin, and – despite Guy Callendar – only really got pulled out in the 1950s…
On this day, December 10 1985, scientist Carl Sagan testified in front of a US senate hearing. He explained the basic physics of carbon dioxide build up and its consequences
“I’d like to stress that the greenhouse effect makes life on Earth possible. If there were not a greenhouse effect, the temperature would, as I say, be 30 centigrade degrees or so colder. And that’s well below the freezing point of water everywhere on the planet. The oceans would be solid after a while.
“A little greenhouse effect is a good thing, but there is a delicate balance of these invisible gases, and too much or too little greenhouse effect can mean too high or too low a temperature. And here we are pouring enormous quantities of CO2 and these other gasses into the atmosphere every year, with hardly any concern about its long-term and global consequences.”
“In the fall of 1985, the Senate held several hearings on the topic of global warming and climate change in response to the report of an international scientific conference held in Villach, Austria. These were the first hearings on climate change in the Senate since 1979. The House had held hearings on rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide under the guidance of Representative Albert Gore in 1981, 1982, and 1984. Senator David Durenberger observed presciently, in his opening statement to the December 1985 hearings on global warming, that `grappling with this problem [of climate change] is going to be just about as easy as nailing jello to the wall’ (SCEPW,1986a, p. 1).
(Pielke, 2000)
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 346ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
From the mid-1970s, scientists had been getting more certain of – and worried about – the impacts of dumping extraordinary amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. They had turned up in Villach, Austria, in September of 1985, for a meeting organised by WMO and UNEP. (see here – October 15, 1985 – Villach meeting supercharges greenhouse concerns…
Forty years we’ve known, really. Those that knew were outspent, outgunned, outmanoeuvred by frightened and frightening goons for the status quo. The\ goons have been the death of us.
What happened next?
The Reagan Administration did everything it could to stop being bounced into a carbon dioxide treaty the way it had been (in its perception) on ozone. With a great deal of very consequential success. We’re so doomed, I cannot begin to tell you.
On this day, December 10, 1978 a five day Workshop co-hosted by the CSU and SCOPE
“Workshop on Climate/Society Interface” began in Toronto..
This was (presumably?!) a kind of sequel/follow up to the February 1978 IIASA workshop “Carbon Dioxide, Climate and Society” which had been cosponsored by WMO, UNEP, and SCOPE, February 21 – 24, 1978.
Papers included
Margolis, H. (December 1978) Estimating social impacts of climate change–What might be done versus what is likely to be done.
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 335ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
