Month: January 2025

Categories
Denial

January 9, 1987 – another stupid letter in the Guardian

Thirty eight years ago, on this day, January 9th, 1987 a grumpy scientist who had already been wrong about ozone was being wrong about carbon dioxide build-up.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 349ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was was that more concern was being paid to the greenhouse effect, especially since the Villach meeting in October 1985 and people were talking about it, clearly. The other context will be that Richard S. Scorer was well as ozone problems, from the 70s and his actions on the latter score a mention (p.114) in a Oreskes and Conway’s book The Merchants of Doubt.

What’s fascinating here is that latter the same year Scorer, in his capacity as President of the Royal Meteorological Society, was engaged in “high level” discussions” about climatic change (as per National Archives binge, Jan 2025 – watch this space!)

What I think we can learn from this

Relevance Deprivation Syndrome, and having been flat wrong is a real thing – see also John Maddox (twice Nature editor) And John Mason (ex-Met boss) for that matter.

What happened next

1988 was the banner year for climate change. It broke through into the public policy agenda. Scorer died in 2011. and the Guardian keep kept publishing asinine letters from asinine people

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day:

January 7, 2004 – geoengineering our way outa trouble?

January 7, 2013 – Australian climate activist pretends to be ANZ bank, with spectacular results 

2013, Jan 7: Paper (briefly) wraps rock. But coal wins in the end… #auspol

Categories
Australia United Kingdom

January 8, 2018 – Joe Root doesn’t come back to bat

Seven years ago, on this day, January 8 2018, English batsman Joe Root didn’t come out to play…

But on Monday morning he was taken to hospital suffering from severe dehydration and diarrhoea. It was assumed that this was a consequence of his being in the field for almost all of Sunday when temperatures in the middle soared as high as 57 degrees, initially trying to marshal England’s flagging attack, then defiantly batting for some pride and the draw.

Marks, 2018.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 408ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Australia has always had some hot days, but they’re getting hotter. And why could that be? Why this matters is we’re beginning to see cultural events and sporting events being affected by the extremes. but we dismissed them because “here always been heat waves” or whatever. 

And there are sports where it’s simply becoming too dangerous to play, or it will become too dangerous to play at certain times of day. 

But in response, these concerns will be derided as woke and people will point to one off days in 1930s when it was hotter.

NB  further on Marks writes “Later, it transpired that Root had a viral gastroenteritis bug and that his illness had noting to do with heat exhaustion, although the temperatures on Sunday could not helped his condition.”

What I think we can learn from this

Yeah, like we ever learn anything…

What happened next

Root is still playing and batting “quite well” shall we say?

He’s now the highest scoring English batsman and might reasonably expect to overtake at least Ricky Ponting quite soon and who knows, conceivably overtake Sachin Tendulkar to score the most runs in Tests. 

Sidebar, Just Stop Oil protesters tried to interfere with the 2023 Ashes and Johnny Bairstow picked one up and removed him from the field. Stewart Lee had something good to say about this…

Also on this day

Jan 8, 1958 – “The masters of infinity… could control the world’s weather”, says LBJ

January 8, 1968 – LaMont Cole to AAAS about running outta oxygen, build-up of C02 etc

January 8, 2003 – Energy firms plan to “bury carbon emissions”…

January 8, 2013 – Australian Prime Minister connects bush fires and #climate change

Categories
Australia

January 7, 2006 – Bureau of Meteorology with another climate warning

Nineteen years ago, on this day, January 7th, 2006,

RISING food prices, increased bushfire risk and diminishing water supplies are some of the challenges Australia will face as the pace of global warming accelerates. The Bureau of Meteorology delivered its annual climate summary this week, showing that 2005 was Australia’s hottest year on record. The nation’s annual mean temperature for 2005 was 1.09C above the average, well above the previous record of 0.84C in 1998.

Anon. 2006. Dire warming warning; Dearer food, more bushfires, less water on way. Canberra Times 7 January.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Millennium Drought was still going on, and the impacts were piling up, The policy blocking from the Liberals and Nationals continuing, was continuing.

What I think we can learn from this is that there hasn’t really been any scientific debate or doubt about climate since, wow, you can, you can vary it, but the early 90s, maybe (I personally would say late 1970s).

And the messages have been clear enough, but the politicians have been able to do the bidding of the incumbent fossil fuel interests in ignoring these warnings. How so? Because they are not forced to take action that would upset their donors and, frankly, string pullers,Why?  Because there is no engaged enraged civil society. Bcause people have it drilled into them from an early age that they are to “stay in their lane,” that they are to do what their lords and masters tell them to do.

Btw, we will prioritize obedience and sycophancy, because these are rewarded and anything else is punished by the passively or actively, until we’re all dead. What happened next The Bureau of Meteorology has been on the receiving end of various accusations from the nut job denialists, of course. How could they not be? The Millennium drought broke in sort of 2010. A  carbon price, which was basically the smallest part of what an adequate response would look like, became politically impossible in Australia after 2012

Categories
Science Scientists

January 6, 1989 – “Cloud-Radiative Forcing and Climate: Results from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment” 

Thirty five years ago, on this day, January 6th, 1989, an article with the snappy title Cloud-Radiative Forcing and Climate: Results from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment was published. Its lead author was  V. Ramanathan.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The starting gun for *public* concern about climate change had been fired a few months before (June 1988), thanks to both James Hansen’s testimony to a Senate committee in Washington DC, a very hot summer, and other events (including statements by senior politicians such as George HW Bush and Margaret Thatcher). Ramanthan’s work on the effect of all the other trace gases on estimated temperature rise had been one factor in making the Villach meeting of 1985 what it was.

What I think we can learn from this

That smart people have been scratching their heads/worrying about the earth’s radiation budget and imbalance for a long long time.

What happened next

Scientists kept sciencing, and the emissions kept climbing.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

V. Ramanathan R. D. Cess, E. F. Harrison, P. Minnis, B. R. Barkstrom, E. Ahmad and D. Hartmann 1989. Cloud-Radiative Forcing and Climate: Results from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment  Science  Vol. 243, No. 4887 (Jan. 6, 1989), pp. 57-63

Also on this day: 

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 5, 1995 – Victorian premier comes out against carbon tax

Thirty years ago, on this day, January 5th, 1995,

“The Industry Greenhouse  sought support from the states for its campaign. Participant F says the network lobbied premiers, ministers, and the state bureaucracy, and forward copies of its carbon tax correspondence and reports.  ‘I think Kennett came out with a statement against carbon tax that I think was prompted by some of our lobbying of the Premier’s Office.’ The Victorian Premier sent out a news release on 5 January 1995 opposing carbon tax and using many of the points put forward by the Industry Greenhouse Network….”

(Worden, 1998: 111) 

(On the same day the greenhouse interdepartmental committee met for first time to plan Faulkner’s next submission… (see Henderson, 12 Jan 1995) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Faulkner, Federal Environment Minister, morning, was pushing for a small carbon tax that would help fund renewables research and development. The fossil fuel industries were up in arms about this, and were drawing in as many allies as they could. One of them was state premiers who were that way inclined, including Jeff Kennet, who of course, had famously privatized the State Electricity Commission of Victoria, and with that, destroyed any hope of a response to the greenhouse effect. 

What I think we can learn from this  is that, as well as “venue shopping,” policy entrepreneurs will go “ally shopping.” And in this case, they went for allies at the state level, as well as trades unions, the real two pronged approach. 

What happened next was that the carbon tax proposal was defeated because Faulkner realized he didn’t have the numbers in Keating’s cabinet.  Australia eventually got a carbon price, an emissions trading scheme in 2011/12, and it was then abolished by the next government, of Tony Abbott. The emissions have kept climbing, and we’re toast. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day:

Categories
Australia

January 4, 2015 – Christine Milne warns about extreme weather events, knackered infrastructure etc.

10 years ago, on this day, January 4th, 2015, the Greens leader Christine Milne points out the obvious,

“Every year we are going to face these extreme weather events, which are going to cost lives and infrastructure, and enough is enough,” she said.

“The Abbott Government has to stop climate denial and help to get the country prepared to adapt to the more extreme conditions.”

Ms Milne said now was the time to talk about Australia’s preparedness for extreme weather events.

“Look at what is happening to people, communities, our environment, loss of infrastructure and for goodness sake abandon your nonsense about climate variability,” she said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-04/south-australia-victoria-bushfires-climate-change-greens-milne/5999342

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 400ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

Milne makes another plea for sanity and a warning about the consequences that lie ahead, as she had in June 2009.

But she is, of course, only a woman, and she is, once again, basically ignored. I should definitely read Cassandra by Crista Wolf. But to be fair, her gender is only part of the story. Because lots of men who are saying the same thing are also being ignored

The context was that the emissions trading scheme the Greens had worked with independents and the minority-ALP government to enact was toast.  Tony Abbott was doing everything he could to slow down the growth of renewables. Desperate times.

What I think we can learn from this is that a good minority of political elites have known, perhaps a tiny minority of political elites have both known and been willing to speak out. What was always missing and is still really missing is engaged enraged, civil society. We have a few NGOs, but that doesn’t count as civil society. 

What happened next

Milne stepped down as Green Party leader a few months later. The emissions, of course, they kept climbing, and here we are.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

January 4, 1977 – US politician introduces #climate research legislation

January 4, 1982 – Global 2000 Report updated

Categories
United States of America

January 4, 2005 – Senator James Inhofe exemplifies denialist bullshit

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 4th, 2005, Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma) was at it again…

To cite one of innumerable examples – provided by realclimate.org – during a speech given at the opening senate session on January 4, 2005, Inhofe said: “we are (…) in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a 400 year cold spell known as the Little Ice Age”, which was a reference to the novelist Michael Crichton and contradicts all published scientific papers, including the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report, which states that human activities are having a significant influence on our changing climate.

http://www.campaigncc.org/climate_change/sceptics/hall_of_shame

Senator Inhofe on Climate Change

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that, after a brief period of agreement, largely that the greenhouse effect was a serious issue, the Republican Party had by the early 90s fallen largely into step with the fossil fuel and industrial interests it used to fully represent, and said that this was another liberal hoax.

You can read about the ways that the culture war started in the late Ross Gelbspan’s two books, The Heat Is On: The High Stakes Battle over Earth’s Threatened Climate, and then later The Boiling Point: How Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists, and Activists Have Fueled a Climate Crisis–And What We Can Do to Avert Disaster

What I think we can learn from this is that old white men have a heft their words, no matter how demented are given far more credence because of their positions, often

What happened next

Inhofe kept being Inhofe, until he died in July 2024. The emissions kept climbing and in and our fate is sealed. To be honest, it was probably sealed already before 20 years ago,

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

January 4, 1977 – US politician introduces #climate research legislation

January 4, 1982 – Global 2000 Report updated
Categories
Australia Cultural responses

January 3, 1988 – The Sea and Summer, early Australian cli-fi, is reviewed.

Thirty six years ago, on this day, January 3rd, 1988 the Australian newspaper the Sun Herald, ran a review of The Sea and Summer by George Turner  under the heading “Melbourne is drowning” (possibly gleeful, given the Sydney-Melbourne rivalry).

The book itself? As Ruth Morgan explains

“Over a decade after his novel The Cupboard Under the Stairs won the Miles Franklin Award in 1963, Turner had turned to writing science fiction (Milner, ‘The Sea’ 112). The Sea and Summer, published as Drowning Towers (1988) in the United States, had earlier appeared as a short story, ‘The Fittest’ (1985), and reflected the growing popular awareness of the potential impacts of anthropogenic climate change in Australia. Turner envisioned a Melbourne drowned as a result of rising sea levels in the middle of the twenty-first century, its population cleaved into haves and havenots, the Sweet and the Swill.” (Morgan, 2014).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that “the Greenhouse Effect” was becoming newsworthy, thanks to a combination of the ozone hole (sensitising people to atmospheric pollution generally) and the post-Villach efforts of scientists, including at the Australian CSIRO.

What I think we can learn from this

When an issue is “hot” (i.e. salient) then journalists will figure out a hook, books that might otherwise not get reviewed, get reviewed.

What happened next

In the second half of 1988 climate change became a public policy issue, that politicians etc had to have opinions about, say warm words about etc.  

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Morgan, Ruth. ‘Imagining a Greenhouse Future: Scientific and Literary Depictions of Climate Change in 1980s Australia.’ Australian Humanities Review 57 (2014): 43-60.

Turner, G. 1987. The Sea, the Summer

Also on this day: 

January 3, 1984 – US report on energy transition to combat climate released.

Jan 3, 1992 – Greenpeace vs POTUS on Climate Change

January 3, 2007 – Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air, says Union of Concerned Scientists

Categories
Australia

January 2, 2016 – Australian environmental NGOs write another wish list…

Nine years ago, on this day, January 2nd, 2016, green groups seek planning permission for more castles in the air…

 A “new deal” blueprint for sweeping reform of Australia’s environment laws that puts climate change at the centre of ­future economic decision-­making is being prepared by a coalition of 40 leading conser­vation groups.

The reform agenda marks an aggressive new phase in environmental lobbying in the wake of the Paris climate meeting, at which Australia agreed to a new “high ambition” agenda to limit future warming to 1.5C.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/green-groups-push-for-environmental-law-reform/news-story/f01474a7609d8041f2f96ef46a2d3d29

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 403ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a perfectly reasonable (if totally inadequate) emissions trading scheme had been junked by Prime Minister Tony Abbott in 2014.  But Australia was now led by a “green” Liberal, Malcolm Turnbull, and greenie groups felt that there might be some wiggle room. And presumably, needed to be seen to be busy, for reasons of self-respect, career and getting direct debits from guilty/frustrated middle-class people.

What I think we can learn from this

The environmental NGOs are always writing these wish lists, as challenges (1988’s “Green Gauntlet”, anyone) and the politicians are always either flat out ignoring them or else pretending to listen while doing virtually nothing.

What happened next

Turnbull got turfed by another Liberal (seriously, these were hilarious days). Eventually a Labor government won office and instantly did everything on this 2016 list. Oh yes.  (sarcasm).

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

January 2, 1955 – Commie newspaper covers climate

January 2, 2008 – tiresome (but sound) “Green Fatigue” warning is made

.Jan 2, 2014- “This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop,

Categories
Carbon Pricing Europe

January 1, 2005 – the EU Emissions Trading Scheme begins.

Twenty  years ago, on this day, January 1st, 2005, the EU launched its emissions trading scheme. It will drive down the cost of “decarbonisation” and send long and loud signals to investors, pay for carbon capture and storage and generally Save The World. Oh yes… 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the idea of emissions trading for climate had been around since the early 1990s – an analogy was drawn with sulphur dioxide trading around acid rain in the US/Canada.  But there had been a lot of skepticism about whether it would “work” – because powerful vested interests would find way to game the system, by getting exemptions, or free allocations etc, and the price signal would end up simply not being loud enough to drive change among investors, industry or consumers.  But the Americans were very keen. And see this – 

The EU ETS would likely not have come into existence without the Kyoto Protocol, but the story of that relationship contains its share of irony. Briefly, emissions trading is an American institutional innovation in environmental regulation that was forced into the negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol by the United States in late 1997 in the face of strong opposition from the EU. Resistance to the concept continued until the new American president pulled the United States out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, after which European opposition to emissions trading faded. 

Ellerman, A. D., & Buchner, B. K. (2007). The European Union emissions trading scheme: origins, allocation, and early results.

What I think we can learn from this

The defeat of the proposed European Carbon Tax in 1991-2 was the killer victory (alongside Bush versus targets and timetables for Rio).  And emissions trading schemes are a nice-to-have, at best. At worst, they are a tar pit for energy, attention and a great delaying tactic, while the consultants get rich.

What happened next

Europe’s emissions have come down a bit – if you count territorially.  If you look at consumption, and embedded carbon, maybe not quite so much…

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Convery, F.J. Origins and Development of the EU ETS. Environ Resource Econ 43, 391–412 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9275-7

(haven’t read it yet)

Ellerman, A. D., & Buchner, B. K. (2007). The European Union emissions trading scheme: origins, allocation, and early results.

Also on this day: 

January 1 1958 – control the weather before the commies do!

January 1, 1981- “Climate Change And Society” published

January 1, 1988 – President Reagan reluctantly signs “Global Climate Protection Act” #CreditClaiming

January 1 2007 James Hansen – “If we fail to act, we end up with a different planet”