Month: December 2025

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

December 15, 2008 – police smears about Climate Camp exposed

Seventeen years ago today, December 15 2008, the late John Vidal writes up the facts in an article titled “Those Kingsnorth police injuries in full: six insect bites and a toothache”  

When climate camp protesters descended on the site of the Kingsnorth power station for a week-long summer demonstration, the scale of the police operation to cope with them was enormous.

Police were accused of using aggressive tactics, confiscating everything from toilet rolls and board games to generators and hammers. But ministers justified what they called the “proportionate” £5.9m cost of the operation, pointing out that 70 officers had been injured in the course of their duties.

But data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act puts a rather different slant on the nature of those injuries, disclosing that not one was sustained in clashes with demonstrators.

Papers acquired by the Liberal Democrats via Freedom of Information requests show that the 1,500 officers policing the Kingsnorth climate camp near the Medway estuary in Kent, suffered only 12 reportable injuries during the protest during August.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/dec/15/kingsnorth-climate-change-environment-police

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 386ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that those agitating for crazy ideas, like (checks notes) an end to slavery, votes, votes for women etc etc are always ignored, and once they can’t be ignored are repressed and smeared. That’s just the way it is.

The specific context was that Climate Camp had been allowed to run for two years already (the police were well aware of the plans to take the Drax site, since those discussions were held in the flat of one of the Spycops). Probably by now they were getting bored, and the SDS was being closed down. So, time to up the harassment (confiscating board games, blasting music at 3am etc etc) and also try to smear the activists with the help of a credulous/compliant media.

What I think we can learn from this – you shouldn’t straight up believe everything you read in a newspaper, even (especially if?!) it comes from an “official source.”

In the words of the journalist Nicholas Tomalin – “they lie, they lie, they lie.” 

What happened next

Same same same. Some things just don’t change.

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: 

December 15, 2005 – James Hansen versus Bush again…

December 15, 2007 – Bali COP closes with “Road Map to Copenhagen” – All Our Yesterdays

December 15, 2009 – Monbiot versus Plimer on Lateline

December 15, 2009 – Daily Express expresses its irresponsibly idiocy…

Categories
Australia United States of America

December 14, 1973 – Canberra Times on melting ice caps

Fifty two years ago, on this day, December 14th, 1973, an article in the Canberra Times about the American writer Howard Wilcox warning of ice caps melting etc

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 330ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that warnings about polar melting had a long history. Various causes for the melting (natural and man-made) were being put forward.

The specific context was that Wilcox thought it was going to be the problem of “waste heat” rather than carbon dioxide build-up that caused the problem (he was not alone in thinking this, btw).

What I think we can learn from this – the phenomena can be disputed, the cause disputed. Lotsa disputes (because reality is confusing. “Science” remains though, a pretty good way of figuring out what is going on… Beats chicken entrails and wild guesses, anyway).

What happened next Wilcox wrote a book. It’s not very good.

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: 

December 14, 1988 – Greenhouse Glasnost gets going…

December 14, 1992 – UK “releases “National programme on carbon dioxide emissions”

December 14, 1995 – Monbiot nails it with “it’s happening” article – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia United States of America

December 13, 1988 – Environment Minister Graham Richardson dishing it out in Washington

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, December 13th, 1988, a speech by the then Australian Environment Minister, the late Graham Richardson, in Washington at International Environment Forum, attacked James Balderstone, AMIC etc. 

“Resource development and industrialisation, often unfettered, have been seen in the past as economic imperatives. But a lack of control and foresight has laid waste so much of the world that environment protection is now the economic imperative. Countries that are fouling their own nest, or allowing others to foul them, will struggle to survive.”

“Countries who protect their nests will be far better off. But with global problems like the greenhouse effect, that is only part of the picture. We now live in one big fairly dirty nest, and protecting other countries as well as our own, is the big economic imperative.”

See H Morgan Speech 4 May 1989 to ANU. “Exploration Access and political power

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 352ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was – we had been through this rhetorical game back in the late 1960s – lots of fine words from politicians.

The specific context was that in 1988 we were at the beginning of another rhetorical game, which would stagger on to 1992. Also, Richardson was still on a sugar-rush after the November 1988 “Greenhouse 88” satellite link up.

What I think we can learn from this – that there was knowledge of what was at stake, all those decades ago.

What happened next

Morgan gave a speech six months later, May 4 1989, to ANU. “Exploration Access and political power.

Richardson tried to get ambitious carbon dioxide reduction targets through Hawke’s cabinet that same month, and got squished by then-Treasurer Paul Keating.

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: 

December 13, 1967 – Sweden begins to save the world…

December 13, 1973 – Edward Heath announces Three Day Week

December 13, 1978 – BBC Radio talks about climate change “One Degree Over” – All Our Yesterdays

December 13, 1984 – Christian Science Monitor monitors the #climate science – ooops.

Categories
Science Scientists United Kingdom

December 13, 1984 – Thatcher warned about climate change. Again.

On this day 41 years ago, the Chief Scientific Advisor, B.N. Nicholson wrote a report which included this –

The predicted changes in climate accompanying increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other gases will have widespread and possibly catastrophic impacts on agriculture, energy supply and demand, sea-defences etc.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 352ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that by the early 1980s climate scientists were pretty sure that there was a quick (in geological terms basically instantaneous) warming on the way. Not that anyone in “power” seemed to give a damn.

The specific context was that Thatcher had already been warned about carbon dioxide build-up by her previous Chief Scientific Advisor, John Ashworth. Meanwhile, by 1984 it was becoming obvious to scientists who could add up that there was serious trouble ahead.

What we learn.  There were plenty of warnings – our “leaders” did not lead.

What happened next. Thatcher was finally convinced in 1988, and the next phase started – one of empty promises.

Also on this day

December 13, 1967 – Sweden begins to save the world…

December 13, 1973 – Edward Heath announces Three Day Week

December 13, 1978 – BBC Radio talks about climate change “One Degree Over” – All Our Yesterdays

December 13, 1984 – Christian Science Monitor monitors the #climate science – ooops.

Categories
Australia Denial United States of America

December 12, 2016 – Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts shares his wisdom

Nine years ago, on this day, December 12th, 2016, the Guardian Australia reports –

 Australian senator Malcolm Roberts, of the far-right One Nation party, who is in the US, revealed he had given a speech at a CEI meeting with Ebell.

Roberts wrote the meeting was a gathering of the Cooler Heads Coalition and then listed some of the participants.

Screengrab of a post on Malcolm Robert’s Facebook page. Photograph: Facebook

They included Marc Morano, Randy Randol, Steve Milloy, Chris Horner, Craig Rucker, Patrick Michaels, Ken Haapala and James Taylor.

The views of most of the attendees are in direct contradiction to the overwhelming majority of scientific research published over decades, as well as the positions of the world’s major scientific academies.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/dec/15/one-nation-senator-joins-new-world-order-of-climate-change-denial

2016 Malcolm Roberts at CEI event http://reneweconomy.com.au/malcolm-roberts-joins-trumps-climate-deniers-fight-freedom-85911/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 404ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was … I can’t even. What a species. Anti-reflexivity etc etc.

The specific context was – the moronic Tony Abbott had recently been toppled by Malcolm Turnbull, who said climate change was a thing.

What I think we can learn from this – nothing. Or rather, that there is no science so proven that there won’t be chuckleheads out there displaying their wilful ignorance.

What happened next

Ah, I will let Wikipedia deal with this

On 27 October 2017, the full High Court, as the Court of Disputed Returns, ruled that Roberts had been ineligible to be elected to the Parliament. Roberts and One Nation leader Pauline Hanson subsequently announced that Roberts would nominate as a candidate for the electoral district of Ipswich at the 2017 Queensland state election.[18] He was not elected.[19] In February 2018, it was announced that Roberts would lead the One Nation Senate ticket in Queensland at the 2019 Australian federal election. Pauline Hanson said: “Malcolm Roberts has got the reputation as a powerhouse, the empirical science man, and he’s really taken it up to members of parliament”.[20]

In September 2017, before the High Court ruling on Roberts’s eligibility, blogger Tony Magrathea initiated a High Court action alleging that Roberts had sat in the Senate while disqualified, contrary to the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975. On 24 June 2019, the High Court found the allegation proved and ordered Roberts to pay a penalty of $6,000 to Magrathea.[21]

Re-election

With his citizenship clear, Roberts was elected to the Senate again in 2019.

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: 

December 12, 1977 – UK Government launches energy efficiency scheme, because Jimmy Carter had visited…

December 12, 1990 – Paul Keating refers greenhouse issue to Industry Commission

December 12, 2007 – Canada leaves Kyoto Protocol as Australia joins

December 12, 2007 – RIP William Kellogg

Categories
Australia

December 11, 1969 – Australian Prime Minister John Gorton becomes a tree-hugger

Fifty six years ago, on this day, December 11th, 1969, the Australian Prime Minister goes all tree-hugger.

In concerning ourselves as a people with what makes for a more satisfying life, we have to admit that we are mostly only vaguely interested in what is happening to our environment, and what is more important what, indeed, we are doing to it. The sins of commission, I think are perhaps as great as the sins of omission. We all of us as citizens pollute the very air we breathe, we savage our unique wildlife with little shame, we slay our fellows on the roads with monstrous carelessness and we accept the congestion of our cities as though urban sprawl was the fault of somebody else. We blame everybody but ourselves for the grey areas in our daily lives.

https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/original/00002148.pdf

11th December 1969 – Gorton comments on page 15 of William Queale lecture

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 324ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Australia had been invaded in the late 18th century. Sorry “settled” for “progress” and “Enlightenment” etc etc. The ecological impacts, along with the devastating social ones, had been profound, in terms of extinctions, topsoil loss, invasive species etc etc etc.

The specific context was there was a growing awareness, in the late 1960s, of all the damage being done. This was the era when “Conservation” was respectable and before so-called Conservative parties had swallowed the neoliberal Kool-Aid.

One is reminded also of comments RFK Snr made about GDP the previous year…

What I think we can learn from this- there was a time when politicians at least acknowledged tensions between growth and environment. Now it’s all hidden under eco-modernist muck.

What happened next – a couple of years later the pressure had grown so much that a Department of the Environment was created. Now THAT’S what I call success…

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: 

December 11, 1895 – Arrhenius reads his “Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air” paper to Swedish Academy of Science…

December 11, 1969 – Harold Wilson says “let’s have a Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution” – All Our Yesterdays

December 11, 1975 – German scientist gives stark climate warning in Melbourne

December 11, 1979 – conference on “Environmental Effects of utilising more coal” in London

Categories
Australia

 December 11, 1966- “Science and Survival” reviewed in Sydney Morning Herald

Fifty nine years ago, on this day, December 11th, 1966,

Peter Finley (presumably Times?) reviewing Science and Survival. 

Reprinted in Sydney Morning Herald 11 December 1966

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=LqEpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7-cDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1390%2C4487624

And he cites examples to show that it is.

“We are burning fuel at such a rate that by AD2000 the amount of extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may be sufficient to raise the temperature of the earth to the point that the Antarctic ice cap begins to melt.

Carbon dioxide has a “greenhouse” effect – allowing sunlight to reach the earth’s surface but limiting the reradiation of heat to space.

Each ton of wood, coal, petrol or natural gas burned sends several tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Between 1860 and 1960, the burning of fuels added 14 per cent extra carbon dioxide to our air – which had remained stable for centuries.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 321ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that from the 1950s newspaper articles, and some books about the weather/future etc had been mentioning carbon dioxide build-up. 

The specific context was that Barry Commoner’s book had come out in mid-1966 and been approvingly reviewed in UK papers. This above is a reprint in the Sydney Morning Herald of a review in The Times.

What I think we can learn from this – it’s almost sixty years, isn’t it?

What happened next

A similar review was published in 1967 in the Canberra Times. LINK

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

December 11, 1895 – Arrhenius reads his “Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air” paper to Swedish Academy of Science…

December 11, 1969 – Harold Wilson says “let’s have a Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution” – All Our Yesterdays

December 11, 1975 – German scientist gives stark climate warning in Melbourne

December 11, 1979 – conference on “Environmental Effects of utilising more coal” in London

Categories
Coal United Kingdom

 December 10, 1980 – the future for coal and the environment

Forty five years ago, on this day, December 10th, 1980, the National Coal Board’s top science bod says what he thinks…

10 December 1980 lecture THE FUTURE FOR COAL AND THE ENVIRONMENT

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 339ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that carbon dioxide build-up as a problem was by now almost 30 years old. There had been waves of concern, each had receded leaving, well, not very much.

The specific context was that Gibson had been up to his neck for the last few years in various investigations of what to do about C02 build-up, if anything could in fact be done.

In 1979 Margaret Thatcher, as the new Prime Minister had met her chief scientific advisor. He tried to get her interested/concerned and her retort was “you want me to worry about the weather?”

What I think we can learn from this – the warnings were there. They were largely ignored.

What happened next – the problem would not become an issue until 1988…

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

 December 10, 1978 – Academic workshop on “Climate/Society Interface” begins in Toronto…

December 10, 1985 – Carl Sagan testified to US Senators on #climate danger

 December 10, 1991 – denialist hosted by the “Tasman Institute” – All Our Yesterdays

December 10, 2006 – Shergold Group announced

Categories
United Kingdom

December 9, 1955 – Tribune writes on carbon dioxide and Weather Control

Seventy years ago, on this day, December 9th, 1955,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 313ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that from the late 1940s the possibilities of what we would not call geo-engineering – melting the Arctic on purpose etc – were popping up in the popular press and the left-wing press.

The specific context was that the International Geophysical Year was coming up, and questions of changes in the weather/climate and the possibilities of man-made weather were becoming a commonplace.

What I think we can learn from this – the knowledge was there, for a very long time, but mostly “lost in the noise.”

What happened next – these sorts of articles kept getting published. 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.

Also on this day: 

December 9, 1974 – UK Department of Energy launches “energy efficiency” programme

December 9, 1998 – Canberra bullshit about environment

December 9, 2004 – “Real Climate” hits the web, bless it.

Categories
Science Scientists Sweden

December 9, 1955 – “On a Mathematical Model of the Carbon Cycle in Nature” submitted.

On this day seventy years ago, an important academic paper on the carbon cycle was received. Published the following year.

On a Mathematical Model of the Carbon Cycle in Nature

A discussion is given of a simple mathematical model of the carbon dioxide cycle in atmosphere-biosphere-sea, with special attention to the possibility of self-sustained oscillations and to the behaviour of the cycle when additional carbon dioxide is injected from an outer source. The discussion is confined to phenomena with characteristic times of the order of 10–103 years leaving out the long geologic periods as well as the purely annual periods. Some numerical computations are also carried out on the electronic computer BESK. The discussion and the computations show that self-sustained oscillations possibly appear due to the presence of the sea, and that they generally are favoured when there exist time-lags in the biosphere of the order of a few decades. The computations also indicate that additional carbon dioxide injected at a rate corresponding to the present combustion of fossil carbon does not change significantly the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, since most part of it will be stored in the biosphere. Thus, the present theory suggests that the increase of carbon dioxide indicated by recent measurements may represent part of a natural self-sustained oscillation and not necessarily be a response to an increased combustion of fossils.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 313ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that all sorts of new possibilities for understanding the universe were being opened up in the 1940s and 1950s – the technical advances of the second war offered new ways of gathering and analysing data, finding patterns.

The specific context was that those meetings in 1954-1955 were a neglected (especially by this site!) push for understanding of the carbon dioxide influence…

What I think we can learn from this – the knowledge of potential problems ahead was solid by the mid-1950s, and it wasn’t all down to Gilbert Plass…

What happened next – then-young Swedish scientist Bert Bolin went to the US in 1959 and tried to get everyone alarmed about carbon dioxide build-up. Oh well…

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: 

December 9, 1974 – UK Department of Energy launches “energy efficiency” programme

December 9, 1998 – Canberra bullshit about environment

December 9, 2004 – “Real Climate” hits the web, bless it.