Author: drmarchudson

Categories
United States of America

November 27, 2018 – Obama boasts about oil production – “that was me, people”

Seven years ago, on this day, November 27th, 2018, former President Obama gives a speech at Rice University:

“I was extraordinarily proud of the Paris Accords because, look I know we’re in oil country and we need American energy. And by the way, American energy production, you wouldn’t always know it, but it went up every year I was president. And you know that whole suddenly America’s like the biggest oil producer … that was me, people.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 408ppm. 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 climate change is not an issue for our lords and masters, not if it gets in the way of capital accumulation (and despite what the eco-modernists want you to believe, it does).

The specific context was that safely out of office Obama could tell it straight.

What I think we can learn from this – this is who the systems demand they be.  The system is what it does, as per Stafford Beer.

What happened next – the oil kept flowing, the emissions kept rising.

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: 

November 27, 1956 – New York Times science writer who covered C02 build-up dies.

November 27 1967 – Newsweek wrings its hands about future ecological problems, including carbon dioxide

November 27, 1969 – Canberra Times runs pollution article, mentions melting ice-caps

November 27, 1978 – “Impacts of climate on Australian Society and Economy” begins…

November 27, 1974 – “The Fear of Climatic Change” – presentation to Australian Royal Meteorological Society 

Categories
United States of America

November 27, 1978 – Harvey Milk assassinated

Forty eight years ago, on this day, November 27th, 1978,

On this day in San Francisco, city mayor George Moscone and openly gay city supervisor Harvey Milk are assassinated by former supervisor Dan White.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 335ppm. 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 upsurge of the 1960s had led to all sorts of positive changes in US society, including the ability of openly homosexual people (men at first) to run for public office.

What I think we can learn from this – liberation comes with risks, as shown in the film Milk.

What happened next – the killer, Dan White, took his own life a few years later.

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: 

November 27, 1956 – New York Times science writer who covered C02 build-up dies.

November 27 1967 – Newsweek wrings its hands about future ecological problems, including carbon dioxide

November 27, 1969 – Canberra Times runs pollution article, mentions melting ice-caps

November 27, 1978 – “Impacts of climate on Australian Society and Economy” begins…

November 27, 1974 – “The Fear of Climatic Change” – presentation to Australian Royal Meteorological Society 

Categories
Australia

November 26, 2009 – Abbott challenges Turnbull

Sixteen years ago, on this day, November 26th, 2009,

On 26 November 2009, Liberal frontbencher Tony Abbott, reluctant yet determined, confronted his party leader Malcolm Turnbull in his office and instigated an upheaval that would shape Australian politics for years. Abbott asked Turnbull to abandon his support for carbon-pricing. He was accompanied by Senate leader Nick Minchin, the ideological spearhead of the campaign against Turnbull and the engineer of this encounter. This meeting would unleash unpredictable winds that would ruin Turnbull’s leadership, catapult Abbott into the office of Opposition leader and eventually destroy both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard.

(Kelly, 2014:18)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 388ppm. 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 after a very brief attempt to court environmentally-concerned voters in the run-up to the 1990 Federal election (LINK), the Liberals and Nationals decided to hate on the greenies.

The specific context was that Malcolm Turnbull had tried to get his party to go along with Rudd’s dire emissions trading scheme, and had said the fateful phrase “I will not lead a party… LINK.

Now, after having announced that the climate change science was “absolute crap” Tony Abbott was making his move.

What I think we can learn from this – they are all terrible people.

What happened next – Abbott toppled Turnbull, by a single vote. He was then a wrecking ball as an Opposition leader (tremendously effective) and a catastrophically inept Prime Minister.

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: 

November 26, 1979 – CCS first glimmerings, by Albanese and Steinberg 

November 26, 1966 – Conservation Society first meeting 

November 26, 1996 – Australian climate modelling is ridiculed

November 26, 1998 – “National Greenhouse Strategy” (re)-launched

November 26, 2008 – pre-CPRS meeting (yawn)

November 26, 2008 – Climate Change Act becomes law

Categories
United Kingdom

November 26, 2008 – UK MPs told climate targets inadequate 

Eighteen years ago, on this day, November 26th, 2008,

A leading climate scientist has told the Environmental Audit Committee that the international target to cut carbon dioxide is too modest and the cap on temperature rise too high to prevent dangerous climate change.

On 26 November, the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee held a special one-off evidence session on the scientific basis for global carbon reduction targets. Giving evidence was leading climate scientist Professor James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the government’s chief scientific adviser Professor John Beddington and Environment Department (DEFRA) scientific adviser Professor Robert Watson.

Anon, 2008. Committee told climate targets are insufficient  ENDS Report Dec 19

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 the UK had at that time a 60% reduction in emissions by 2050 as its target. This was bumped up to 80% in 2008. 

Bob Watson had been telling politicians (UK and US) for 20 years at this point. See this – June 10, 1986 – scientist tells US senators “global warming is inevitable. It is only a question of the magnitude and the timing.”

The specific context was that the Climate Change Act received Royal Assent that very day.

What I think we can learn from this – the MPs were warned, but didn’t particularly give a shit – tomorrow’s problem.

What happened next – in 2019 the target was pushed up to “Net Zero” (distinct from actual zero) by 2050.  All too late.

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: 

November 26, 1979 – CCS first glimmerings, by Albanese and Steinberg 

November 26, 1966 – Conservation Society first meeting 

November 26, 1996 – Australian climate modelling is ridiculed

November 26, 1998 – “National Greenhouse Strategy” (re)-launched

November 26, 2008 – pre-CPRS meeting (yawn)

November 26, 2008 – Climate Change Act becomes law

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia Denial

November 25, 2010 – GB Tucker dies

Fifteen years ago, on this day, November 25th, 2010,

2010 GB Tucker dies, after writing a bunch of shite in the IPA Review after retirement (f.ex. November 30, 1994 – Another denialist dolt – “Global warming a clouded issue”)

In 1986, he was singing a different tune.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. 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 Tucker had written the 1981 monograph on C02. (LINK)

The specific context was that upon retiring from the CSIRO’s Atmospheric Physics division Tucker had written a couple of dodgy denialist articles for the Institute of Public Affairs. An ignominious end to what could have been a reasonable career.

What I think we can learn from this – 1) people get Relevance Deprivation Syndrome.  2) Education is no real protection against being spectacularly wrong.

What happened next – denialism continued, obvs.

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: 

November 25, 1968 – First atmospheric layers collection of carbon dioxide… – All Our Yesterdays

November 25, 1993 – House of Commons briefing on carbon taxes

November 25, 2000 – CoP meeting ends in official disarray…

Categories
Activism

November 24, 1979 – Anti-nuclear campaign launch

Forty six years ago, on this day, November 24th, 1979 an Anti Nuclear campaign launch – see  two pager about this in the London Greenpeace

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 337ppm. 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 the 1970s saw a huge growth in anti-nuclear power movements.

The specific context was – Thatcher had come to power, and was as gung-ho for nuclear as her predecessors (because, well, there’s a permanent pro-nuclear establishment, isn’t there?).

What I think we can learn from this – smart people have been writing about the problems faced by social movements/NGOs for a long time, and we could do worse than listen and learn. But we won’t do that, because it requires time, access to materials, courage, curiosity and humility.

What happened next – the coalition didn’t really last, as I suspect many knew it wouldn’t.

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: 

November 24, 1971 – I’ve seen the future baby, it is murder (Meadows explaining Limits to Growth at US Embassy) – All Our Yesterdays

November 24, 1977 – Canberra Times reports “all coal” plan would “flood US cities”

November 24, 1992 – I’ve seen the future baby, it is murder (Cohen’s “The Future” released) 

November 24, 2009 – the Climate War in Australia goes kinetic…

Categories
Germany

November 24, 1973 – German speed limits

Forty six years ago, on this day, November 24th, 1973,

24 Nov 1973 – A national speed limit is imposed on the Autobahn in Germany because of the 1973 oil crisis. The speed limit lasted only four months.

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 the 1973 Oil Shock was forcing governments to constrain some forms of behaviour.

What I think we can learn from this – it didn’t last. Humans desire for speed – and the illusions of freedom that can bring – is a very powerful force.

What happened next – the law didn’t last. 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: 

November 24, 1971 – I’ve seen the future baby, it is murder (Meadows explaining Limits to Growth at US Embassy) – All Our Yesterdays

November 24, 1977 – Canberra Times reports “all coal” plan would “flood US cities”

November 24, 1992 – I’ve seen the future baby, it is murder (Cohen’s “The Future” released) 

November 24, 2009 – the Climate War in Australia goes kinetic…

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

November 23, 2021 – XR says will mobilise two million

Four years ago, on this day, November 23rd, 2021,

Extinction Rebellion UK claims it will have 2million ppl mobilised

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 416ppm. 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 last climate “wave” of concern began in 2018, with the long hot summer, the IPCC’s 1.5 degrees report, Greta Thunberg and … XR.  But by late 2019, before the pandemic, it was clear that the wheels were wobbling, if not actually falling off.

See my “Does XR have the right tactics” debate in New Internationalist.

The specific context was – there had been attempts to re-heat the souffle. These had failed.

What I think we can learn from this – when the groups are on the downswing, they redouble and redouble their rhetoric.

See also my XR post with Hudson’s Law of social movement organisations and JSO anthropologically fascinating, politically terrifying

What happened next – Soon after XR announced “we quit”. And I wrote about that too.

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: 

November 23, 1961 – “The Day the Earth Caught Fire” (in Denmark)

November 23, 1963 – Doctor Who begins

November 23, 1968 – “Hell upon Earth” warning about environmental destruction,inc. Climate…

November 23, 1988 – Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke gives greenhouse speech

November 23, 2009 – Global Warming Policy Foundation launched 

Categories
Science Scientists

November 23, 1965 – Walter Orr Roberts “carbon dioxide is clearly rising in the atmosphere”

Sixty years ago, on this day, November 23rd 1965, American scientist Walter Orr Roberts gave a speech. In it, this – 

“Perhaps, through this mechanism, we are already modifying the atmosphere, unknowingly and on a large scale, as we clearly are already doing on the city scale. Indeed, can we be sure that city-scale modification is simply city-scale? Or are the atmospheric solids and gases put in over the city bringing changes on a larger scale? The relative abundance of carbon dioxide is clearly rising in the atmosphere, almost certainly through man’s intervention. But no one seems at all secure about what this is doing to the climate.”

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society  Vol. 47, No. 3, March 1966 Based on an address delivered at the International Symposium on Electromagnetic Sensing of the Earth from Satellites, Miami, Fla., 23 November 1965.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 320ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it was 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 since the early 1950s the question of carbon dioxide build-up and its possible climatic consequences had been known. Not necessarily taken seriously, but by the mid-1960s, this was -just- beginning to shift.

The specific context was Roberts gave his speech in the aftermath of the release of the PSAC report on November 7th 1965.

What I think we can learn from this – it wasn’t secret or arcane information.  I am not saying “everyone knew” but, well, a lot of people did.

What happened next – the emissions kept climbing. NCAR kept investigating.

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: 

November 23, 1961 – “The Day the Earth Caught Fire” (in Denmark)

November 23, 1963 – Doctor Who begins

November 23, 1968 – “Hell upon Earth” warning about environmental destruction,inc. Climate…

November 23, 1988 – Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke gives greenhouse speech

November 23, 2009 – Global Warming Policy Foundation launched 

Categories
Australia United States of America

November 22, 1996 – Clinton in Australia, gives climate speech about Great Barrier Reef…

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, November 22nd, 1996, freshly re-elected US President Bill Clinton is in Australia….

“Finally, we must work to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions. These gases released by cars and power plants and burning forests affect our health and our climate. They are literally warming our planet. If they continue unabated, the consequences will be nothing short of devastating for the children here in this audience and their children.

“New weather patterns, lost species, the spread of infectious diseases, damaged economies, rising sea levels: if present trends continue, there is a real risk that sometime in the next century, parts of this very park we are here in today could disappear, submerged by a rising ocean. That is why today, from this remarkable place, I call upon the community of nations to agree to legally binding commitments to fight climate change.”

Remarks on the International Coral Reef Initiative in Port Douglas, Australia | The American Presidency Project

Prime Minister John Howard dissed it of course – see Gordon, M. 1996. “Howard defends stand on emissions.” The Australian, November 25, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm. 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 Clinton had started his first term with promises of climate action, and then had his arse handed to him over the BTU tax.

The specific context was that Clinton had just won re-election, defeating Bob Dole, and knew that there would be fun and games ahead, internationally, because the Kyoto conference was coming up in December 1997. Given the Australian stance at COP2, it was clear there was gonna be Australian resistance and shitfuckery.

What I think we can learn from this – Clinton was not stupid. Corrupt, venal, slimy, yes. Stupid, no.

What happened next – Australia spent 1997 demanding special treatment, and got it, carving out an increase in emissions as its emissions “reductions” target.

Obama made some nice speeches.

http://www.news.com.au/national/18-years-on-us-president-barack-obama-follows-bill-clinton-to-queensland-for-the-same-outcome/news-story/32318f45fbde89461f9e5fba8db343c0   

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: 

November 22, 2000 – protests at COP6 at The Hague

November 22, 2002 – private business battles on #climate become public in Australia

November 22, 2004 – another denialist screed foisted upon the world