Month: February 2026

Categories
Australia International processes

March 1, 1989 – “Environment pact backed” by Australian government

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, March 1st, 1989,

Federal Cabinet is set to back calls for an international treaty to protect the environment, a move which could drastically alter the nation’s future pattern of trade and the development of its resources.

Australia would support an international treaty to guard against potentially dangerous shifts in the earth’s climate and atmosphere, under a submission expected to go before Cabinet’s structural adjustment committee today.

[The Hague]

Dunn, R. 1989. Environmental pact backed. Australian Financial Review, 1 March.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was  that Australia had been warned about climate change build up repeatedly by scientists, the CSIRO had been beavering away on it since the early 70s. There had been a secret report called Fossil Fuels and The Greenhouse Effect in, or done by the Office of National Assessments in 1981. There had been Barry Jones, Minister of Science, organising the Greenhouse Project between the CSIRO’s atmospheric physics division and the Commission for the Future. And the issue had exploded into public awareness. In ‘88 there had been the “greenhouse 88” conference, linked by satellite to 10 towns and cities in Australia, everyone was holding hands and saying, “We will deal with this problem.”

The specific context is that the idea of an international treaty to deal with climate was high on the agenda because the ozone problem had had an international treaty, and then protocols were underway, So there was a meeting at The Hague without the big beasts deliberately. I should look into why the Dutch called it. Anyway, Australia, under Bob Hawke, was going to take a positive and proactive role. 

What I think we can learn from this is that Australia, at the outset, was not what it is now. And this is in part because I think the business groups were caught on the back foot, as they often are at the beginning of a window of concern, and just assumed that it would all blow over – they weren’t pushing hard back. And so the pro action forces had kind of an open goal. 

What happened next is that business did indeed wake up, and the pushback against any meaningful climate policy kicked into gear in late 1989 early 1990. Perhaps business had thought that they didn’t need to do much because a Liberal government was coming back, and despite the fine words of people like Chris Puplick, a business friendly Liberal government could be relied on to prevent meaningful climate action. That’s just speculation on my part. 

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: 

March 1, 1954 – Lucky Dragon incident gives the world the word “fall out”

March 1, 1967 – Carbon dioxide as important waste problem

March 1, 1970 – so many tribes, so few common interests – All Our Yesterdays

March 1st 2010 – scientist grilled over nothing burger…

Categories
Italy Science Scientists World Meteorological Organisation

March 1, 1983 – WMO ICSU meeting of WCRP in Venice 

Forty three ago, on this day, March 1st, 1983, the scientists had been sciencing.

March 1 to 8 1983 WMO ICSU meeting of WCRP in venice 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 343ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had begun to really think hard about carbon dioxide build up as a problem in the late 60s. There had been a two or three week scientific meeting in the middle of 1971 about man’s impact on climate. By the mid 1970s, the World Meteorological Organisation was saying carbon dioxide was probably the problem. And in 1979 it had held the First World Climate Conference, which could – and should – have said, “carbon dioxide is the problem.” But for opposition from people like John Mason. 

The specific context was that by 1983 people were beginning to twig to this. There had been the Charney report and so forth, and various international efforts, a meeting with the ICSU as well. In a place like Venice! It would have been fun to be a fly on the wall. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the scientists were beavering away, as scientists do, and by the mid 1980s really, the verdict was in.

What happened next. The big, seminal moment, pivotal moment, according to people who know about these things, was Villach. Maybe Villach wasn’t quite so important scientifically, but it certainly was politically, and you can read about it here. 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.

Also on this day: 

March 1, 1954 – Lucky Dragon incident gives the world the word “fall out”

March 1, 1967 – Carbon dioxide as important waste problem

March 1, 1970 – so many tribes, so few common interests – All Our Yesterdays

March 1st 2010 – scientist grilled over nothing burger…

Categories
On This Day

On this Day: February 28 – Senate hearings (1984), Australian business lobby paralysed (2003), Rudd makes empty promises (2010)

By the mid 1980s regular hearings were being held by concerned politicians in Congress and Senate, as the science got more alarming and the Reagan Administration’s response continued to be predatory delay.

February 28, 1984 – Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect hearings

The peak big business group in Australia – the Business Council of Australia had a civil war between pro-action (renewables, bankers, carbon creditors) and anti (fossil fuel etc) factions. They fought each other to a standstill…

Feb 28, 2003- Australian business lobby switches from opposition to “no position” on Kyoto ratification #auspol

After the defeat of his wretched carbon pricing scheme and the catastrophe of Copenhagen, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd promised not to walk away from climate change. Then did.

February 28, 2010 – Australian Prime Minister says won’t walk away from climate. (Then does, obvs.)

Are there other climate-related events that happened on this day that you think deserve a shout out? If so, let me know.

As ever, invite me on your podcast, etc etc.

Categories
Science Scientists

February 27, 1953 – Gilbert Plass test-drives his presentation…

Seventy three years ago, on this day, February 27, 1953, Canadian scientist Gilbert Plass gives a presentation at Simon Newcomb Astronomical Society – 

Henry, F. 1953. Question of Eras, Tropical or Glacial. Baltimore Sun, March 1, p71

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 312ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that in the late 19th century, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius had suggested that carbon dioxide buildup would eventually warm the planet. He didn’t think this was a bad thing, and he thought it would take 1000s of years or hundreds at least.

Arrhenius’ predictions had been challenged.

In 1938 a British steam engineer called Guy Callendar, had moved the dial a little bit, perhaps, and had said that the warming was indeed already happening. This was mostly ignored in the UK, but some Americans were getting interested.

The specific context was that so were Canadians. Gilbert Plass was originally Canadian, and he had been working on this, and was going to be speaking at the American Geophysical Union meeting in May.

And here he is, about two months beforehand, testing out his presentation on a smaller audience, a less scientifically robust one 

What I think we can learn from this is that Plass didn’t just turn up on the fourth of May cold. He had tested out his argument and his presentation beforehand, which I think is kind of interesting, but I would because I’m the guy who has discovered this, and as anyone knows, who rustles around a lot in archives, just because you found something, doesn’t mean it’s important or significant. There is not a one to one relationship between the amount of effort you’ve expended and the importance of what you found.

What happened next: Plass gave his speech at the AGU which went around the world. Plass released more scientific studies and also something in American Scientist and Scientific American in 1959. Pllass was there in 1963 at the Conservation Foundation’s meeting in New York, and that was about it for Plass. He went on to other things; he’d said what he had to say.  The emissions kept climbing. Concentrations kept climbing. You know, the rest…

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: 

February 27, 1988 – Canberra “Global Change” conference ends

February 27, 1989 – Barron’s “Climate of Fear” shame…

February 27, 1992 – climate denialists continue their effective and, ah, well EVIL, work

Feb 27, 2003 – the “FutureGen” farce begins…

Categories
Australia

February 26, 2016 – Australian Defence White Paper useless on climate

Ten years ago, on this day, February 26, 2016,

Former Chief of the Australian Defence Force Chris Barrie recently argued that ‘Australia’s defence force is lagging significantly behind its US and UK counterparts in preparing to deal with the challenges created by a changing climate.’

Maclellan, N. 2016. Defence White Paper fails on climate change. Lowy Interpreter, 26 February.

http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2016/02/26/Defence-White-Paper-fails-on-climate-change.aspx

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Australian Defence and intelligence forces had had some sort of an eye on climate change since at least 1981 when the Office of National Assessments had produced a report which you can now read because I paid for it to be scanned and declassified.

The specific context was that by 2016 climate change was horrendously politicised, an exhausting and exhausted topic of debate. It had been almost exactly 10 years, sort of September 2006, since the issue had (re)burst onto the public scene, and John Howard had been forced into a kind of U turn.  What followed this was the carbon pricing wars of 2007 to 2011 and whatever you said about climate change, someone was gonna leap on you. So the best thing, the safest thing to do was make various anodyne, vague statements and kick the issue into the next poor bugger’s in-tray. And so it came to pass,

What I think we can learn from this is as per the 2004 Pentagon study, just because it’s the military doesn’t mean it’s intelligent, and in fact, the very concept of military intelligence might sometimes be considered a misnomer. 

What happened next: The issue hasn’t gone away. It never will. Everyone who’s alive will have climate change as the background noise getting louder and louder for the rest of their lives, however long that might be. 

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: 

Feb 26, 1981 – Science writer warns readers about the greenhouse in the Guardian….

February 26, 1988 – Australian climate scientist Graeme Pearman warns of “Dramatic Warming”

 Feb 26, 1998 – Australian “clean coal” is on the way (again).

February 26, 2014 – Advanced Propaganda for Morons

Categories
On This Day

On this Day February 25 – National senator names the problem (1981), Treasury says carbon pricing is obvs (2003), shock jock wins war against sanity (2011)

Forty five years ago a Senator for the National Party (back when it was still serious, and not a collection of fruitcakes and nutjobs) laid out the basic facts and dilemmas.

February 25, 1981 – National Party senator nails the climate problem

Twenty three years ago, after one defeated emissions trading scheme in August 2000, and as second push was well underway, Australia’s Treasury Department tried to talk sense to Prime Minister John Howard. Ha ha ha.

February 25, 2003 – Australian Treasury says “carbon pricing. It’s not rocket science”

In the midst of the beserk carbon war of 2011, a radio shock jock grapples with sanity.  And wins.

February 25, 2011 – Alan Jones versus sanity

Are there other climate-related events that happened on this day that you think deserve a shout out? If so, let me know.

As ever, invite me on your podcast, etc etc.

Categories
anti-reflexivity Denial United States of America

February 24, 1994 – Ted Koppel versus the lies. No contest.

Thirty two years ago, on this day, February 24, 1994,

On February 24th, 1994, ABC’s Nightline aired a news segment titled, “Is Science for Sale?” Its host, Ted Koppel, explained the piece was prompted by a conversation with then Vice President Al Gore. The segment features many prominent climate change deniers including:

The comments in this segment reflect some of the most common arguments used by climate deniers attempting to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change such as:

  1. Current science is unable to tie increases in greenhouse gases to human activities;
  2. We should rely on present observations rather than inaccurate climate models which are unable to predict future climate scenarios effectively;
  3. Climate policies are unnecessary and would hurt the economy, endanger people, and harm our way of life.

On air, Koppel reported the financial ties of his guests, largely comprised of fossil fuel entities, including consulting fees to Fred Singer from Exxon, Shell, ARCO, Unocal and Sun Oil (14:50); funding to Patrick Michaels and Sherwood Idso from the coal interest group Western Fuels Association (12:20; 13:30) ; and support of Ron Arnold’s Wise Use Movement from corporations like Exxon (5:30). The segment also included a clip of Rush Limbaugh, referred to as the “archdeacon of conservatism” boasting, “I can produce as many scientists that say there is not global warming as they can produce that say there is.” He referred to Pat Michaels as “one that I rely on” (12:15).

The segment featured environmental advocates Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund and Vice President Al Gore, however, Jerry Mahlman, previous director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was the only scientist interviewed who challenged the opinions of deniers like Fred Singer, of whom Koppel also referred to as a “scientist.”

Despite the segment’s lack of scientists representing the global consensus on anthropogenic climate change, Koppel comments:

“This is not, you understand, a close call. It’s not as though US scientists are evenly divided or even close to being evenly divided on issues like the greenhouse effect or depletion of the ozone layer. But environmentalists are concerned about even the appearance of a scientific dispute.” (6:09)

1994 02 24 Nightline Ted Koppel – https://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/1994-nightline-special-science-for-sale/

UK-EN | D7960 | Curate for cash | Home | Seller | 16×9 | 15s | .mp4

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that from 1988,eighty-nine onwards, the denialists in the United States had been pushing back as hard as they could against climate science using superannuated physicists like Nirenberg and the George Marshall Institute to muddy the waters. They had done this with significant success.

The specific context was that Bill Clinton and Al Gore had had their asses handed to them over the proposed BTU (i.e.petrol) tax and Gore was therefore probably in a bad mood about all this, and so got talking to Ted Koppel, who was one of the sort of famous news anchors and they did a full on expose of the denialist tropes/

What I think we can learn from this is that politicians have been trying to educate the public and Gore, bless him, has within the constraints of his particular ideology, done more than most. But telling people that they’ve been lied to and showing how they’ve been lied to, turns out it doesn’t work that well, because you’re asking people to admit that they fell for lies, and nobody wants to admit that they fell for lies. 

What happened next: Lies kept coming. They were convenient to believe. The lying campaign stepped up a notch around 1997 as the Kyoto negotiations were underway, and alongside the lies came the emissions, came the increasing concentrations. And I’ve already said this about 10 times this month already, so I won’t repeat myself.

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: 

February 24, 1971 – aims of the Department of the Environment

February 24, 2003 – UK Energy White Paper kinda changes the game (a bit).

February 24, 2011 – the fateful press conference of Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the Greens Bob Brown…

Categories
On This Day

On this Day February 23, solar energy (1974), Scientist worries (1977) Denialist shite (1993), best FT letter ever (2024)

In the early 1970s, with fears the oil would run out (or come under the control of untrustworthy A-rabs, which amounted to the same thing), there was intense interest in “alternative” energy sources. Australia was one of the leaders on solar research

February 23, 1974 – CSIRO Solar energy conference

By the mid-1970s the carbon dioxide build-up problem was beginning to cut through, especially in the aftermath of the very hot summer of 1976….

February 23, 1977 – UK Chief Scientific Advisor worries about carbon dioxide build-up. 

Although the “greenies” had been defeated by about 1992, angry old white men, deprived of relevance, were still fulminating. Take a bow, former Hawke-era minister Peter Walsh…

 February 23, 1993 – Peter Walsh spouting his tosh again

The best ever letter. No notes. 

Feb 24, 2024 The best letter to have ever appeared in the Financial Times

Are there other climate-related events that happened on this day that you think deserve a shout out? If so, let me know.

As ever, invite me on your podcast, etc etc.

Categories
United States of America

February 22, 2004 – secret Pentagon report predicts apocalypse by 2024

Twenty two years ago, on this day, February 22, 2004 a report in The Observer…

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that politicians had received warnings for a long long time.

The specific context was that the Bush administration’s denial of climate science was getting more and more pushback. Meanwhile, the Pentagon was trying to perhaps find other things to talk about besides the Iraq War, which wasn’t quite going how they planned. The war had gone how they planned, the occupation, not so much so. There had been various sorts of security studies of climate impacts. It’s fairly obvious that it would not just affect geopolitics, but the ability to fight; everything, how much water soldiers needed, and on and on and on.

What I think we can learn from this is that just because it’s a military study doesn’t mean it’s not horse shit. Because the authors are trying to get more money. That’s what the author of almost any report is trying to do; more money, more attention, jobs for their mates. That’s how all of these games are played. And so if you actually look at what the report predicted 20 years hence, i.e. now it has not come to pass. So we should always be careful that just because it’s in a secret report doesn’t mean it’s in any way accurate.  

What happened next: More reports. More inaction. More despair.

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: 

February 22, 1991 – Denialist gloating about influence on Bush

February 22, 2012 – “Campaign to Repeal the Climate Change Act” holds a meeting…

February 22, 2013 – Idiotic “Damage” astroturf attempted by miners

February 22, 2020 – CO2 pipeline accident – “Like something out of a zombie movie”

Categories
On This Day

 On this Day – February 21 

Fifty four years ago today, a BBC documentary tackled the entirely-predictable (and well-funded) backlash against eco-concerns….

February 21, 1972 – Horizon and the backlash against “selling doomsday”

Forty eight years ago today, a workshop organised by the technocrats at the International Institute for Advances Systems “Analysis” took place. The technocrats will save us all (spoiler: no they won’t)

Feb 21, 1978 – “Carbon dioxide, climate and society” workshop

Twenty two years ago convenient and soothing lies about “clean coal” got a run at a conference in Australia.

February 21, 2004 – “Turning coal clean and green.” Sure. Any day now.

Are there other climate-related events that happened on this day that you think deserve a shout out? If so, let me know.

As ever, invite me on your podcast, etc etc.