Forty three years ago, on this day, December 19th, 1982,
Horizon BBC Two Sun 19th Dec 1982, 15:20 on BBC Two England
The State of the Planet
This year 100 world authorities on the environment met in London; their task, to assess progress in the ten years since the first major UN Environment Conference in Stockholm.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 341ppm. 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 yes, the big Stockholm “save the earth” conference was ten years ago. There were some signs of progress on some issues (lead in petrol, etc) but clearly other problems were growing.
The specific context was – the international bureaucracy loves an anniversary – another chance for more reports, more meetings, more pledges.
What I think we can learn from this – we knew plenty a very long time ago. The best time to slam your foot on the brakes is before the bus goes off the cliff.
What happened next – the facts kept getting told. And ignored. By the late 1980s, for a variety of reasons, they became unignorable. BBC Horizon kept making programs about this.
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.
Seventy-two years ago, on this day, December 18th, 1953, Irving Langmuir gave a seminar at General Electric,
In 1953, at the time he was making highly dubious claims for the efficacy of weather modification and even climate modification, Langmuir presented a seminar at GE on “Pathological science” or “the science of things that arenʼt so.”(27) Utilizing his own criteria for pathology, Langmuirʼs claims for cloud seeding qualified on several counts: they rested on observations close to the threshold of detectability, on apparently meaningful patterns generated in field trials; on the inability of critics to reproduce the experiments; on the intervention of the courts, legislature, and the press; and on overreliance on the credentials of a Nobel laureate rather than proof.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 312ppm. 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 in the aftermath of World War 2, anything seemed possible, if you threw enough money and brains at it.
The specific context was – hydrogen bombs had been tested, and weather modification was “in the air” – but maybe it couldn’t be done…
What I think we can learn from this – even those taking the grants for the experiments were not sure it could be done…
What happened next – Langmuir died in 1957. The Weather Modification bandwagon rolled on for decades.
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
Fleming, J. 2006. The pathological history of weather and climate modification: Three cycles of promise and hype . Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences (2006) 37 (1): 3–25.
Twenty five years ago, on this day, December 17th, 2000,
COMPANIES that produce greenhouse gas would have to buy permits to do so under plans outlined in a new report by the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO).
The report rejects proposals backed by business for permits to be handed out, arguing the idea would be inefficient and do little to protect jobs that are at risk from greenhouse gas reduction proposals.
Anon. 2000. Gas permit plan. Sunday Telegraph, December 17
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. 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 fossil fuel interests had fought a very successful pair of campaigns against a carbon tax (1990-1 and 1994-5). A pissweak voluntary scheme, the “Greenhouse Challenge” had come into play in 1995, and the Howard government was content for this to keep going.
The specific context was that an emissions trading scheme proposal had been defeated, thanks to South Australian Liberal Senator Nick Minchin, in August 2000. But the pretence of action had to be maintained, for various reasons.
What I think we can learn from this – it is all kayfabe, all make-believe.
What happened next. Another proposal for an emissions trading scheme, supported by the entire Cabinet bar one person, came forward in mid-2003. That one person was Prime Minister John Howard, who vetoed it.
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.
Sixty eight years ago, on this day, December 16th, 1957, there was a Meteorological Office discussion of Atmospheric Chemistry at the Royal Society of Arts.
And
“If carbon dioxide continued to be generated by human activities at the present rate, and if it all remained in the air, there would be a change in the world’s climate which within a few centuries might be disastrous.”
(see 1958 Meteorological Magazine)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 315ppm. 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 the Met Office has been around for yonks! The Royal Society of the Arts is somewhat older.
The specific context was that the International Geophysical Year was underway, with a lot of data analysis to come…
Even before the data was collected, however, there was knowledge that there might be trouble ahead.
NB John Sawyer was present (more on this later).
What I think we can learn from this – The IGY generated a lot of things to talk about!
What happened next
The Met Office didn’t start getting seriously interested in carbon dioxide until 1976…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
