Seventeen years ago, on this day, September 29th, 2007, a nuclear power plant goes kaboom, but in an okay way.
Calder Hall, the world’s first commercial nuclear power station, is demolished in a controlled explosion
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that nuclear power was gonna signal a renaissance for British industry, global industry. It had been a very expensive nightmare, but had given us supply chains for nuclear weapons and the technology and the workforce to keep those going. So that’s the most important thing; keeping the UK seat on the Security Council as a nuclear power.
What do we learn? Is that all good things come to an end and so does Calder Hall. Compare the end of Concorde in 2003…
What happened next? Well, this was 2007. This was in the midst of yet another attempt to go nuclear. By this time Blair had been successfully lobbied. And here we go, planning to spend yet more money on nuclear energy and it’s not going to work.
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.
Post topic: a new (?) social media tactic from denialists/predatory delayers seems to be underway. I call it the “killer pro-bot” technique. Here I explain it, speculate on who is behind it, talk about the consequences of responding/not responding and then lay out what my response will be from now, asking you what your experiences and perspectives are. Five minute read? Ish.
Over the last weeks/months I’ve noticed, especially on the Twitter feed for this site (@our_yesterdays) various new followers or regular commenters who have very little personal info available, a bland photo/bio with an “inoffensive” “positive” strap line. Examples below. What is interesting is they all seem to have been set up in mid-2022, have very few followers and seem to have humans (chained up in a botfarm somewhere, given food in exchange for a certain number of responses per day) doing the responding. The responses are too specific for the current generation of AI, I think.
Here are some examples.
What might be going on?
If I were running “predatory delay” campaigns for an oil major or whoever, I’d be moving away from outright denial. It’s too crude and alienating to the “middle-ground” folks you’re trying to influence. Funders of the predatory denial campaigns eventually wise up to the fact that what they are paying for is not working. If you don’t offer a new strategy, your contract for shit-fuckery doesn’t get renewed. Adapt or die etc.
So I think the new pitch is something like this.
Pitcher: “We are going to continue to try to confuse and demoralise the activists online, obviously. But instead of just abuse, we are going to try to distract them. They’re desperate for affirmation, so we can set up loads of low-maintenance accounts that just churn out bland stuff.
Some activists will ignore it.
Some will suspect something but shrug their shoulders
Others, so desperate for any engagement, especially if it SEEMS positive, or neutral, will engage in long attempts to “educate” our bots. This will take up their time and energy that they might otherwise spend more usefully, and ALSO make them seem condescending and patronising to third parties. If they eventually lose their shit, even better, they look bitter and unhinged.”
Funder: we keep up with the hater stuff, but add this to?
Pitcher: Yup. We’ve been flood the zone with denial, bullshit and hate. For ages. It has worked to keep the haters riled up. But they are ageing, and as the real-world evidence of climate change piles up, it’s becoming harder, even for them, to deny reality. And doing that alienates those who are not quite as indoctrinated. If you want to distract/confuse, you need a more emollient ‘reasonable’ set of stooges/avatars.)
Funder: go ahead. Let me know how you get on.
What happens if we ignore?
Eventually, these accounts might start to gain more followers, albeit semi-passively. Then they can be deployed with more ‘credibility’ as voices of “moderation” at critical junctures (though frankly, everything is a critical juncture these days, has been for decades. Oh well).
Crucially, if your opponents are testing out a new strategy (as I suspect they are), it’s usually a good idea to name that strategy and discuss how to respond, before things get out of hand.
So, what I am going to do.
Screengrab the account bio
Add it to this post
Block these pro-bots until Twitter removes the block function.
Once Twitter removes the block and mute functions (apparently scheduled for December?) reduce Twitter engagement to absolute bare minimum.
What experiences to you have?
What actions have you taken? What do you think of my analysis, actions? What else would you say?
Forty-seven years ago, on this day, September 28th, 1977, the Met Office’s John Mason covers himself in glory yet again…
In one of the earliest indications of Cabinet-level interest in climate change, Hunt took the opportunity to quiz Mason on climate issues during his visit to the Meteorological Office in September 1977. Over the course of the visit, Mason made his views on CO2 climate change, as well as his exasperation with ‘‘alarmist United States views’’ clear.54 Whilst Hunt agreed that the voices coming out of the United States were unduly scaremongering, still he insisted that the Meteorological Office devote more attention and resources to climate questions and directed Mason to coordinate with the Central Policy Review Staff—orders Mason could not ignore.55
Source: Martin-Nielsen “Computing the Climate.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the US National Academy of Sciences had just released its two year report on Energy and Climate. It’s not clear whether Mason had seen a copy yet, probably not. But he had read press clippings, no doubt, and Mason was continuing his failure to engage with CO2 as a problem, something that he had been doing at least since 1967. Possibly earlier.
What we learn is that important, influential scientists within the British establishment were arrogant and complacent (this will come as a big shock to you). And that this arrogance and complacency had monumental consequences.
What happened next Mason continued to be a dick. And he was especially a dick. At the First World Climate Conference in Geneva in February of 1979.
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, on this day, September 28th, 2007, George Bush showed what he was capable of. Again,
28 September 2007 Bush speech
We’ve identified a problem, let’s go solve it together. We will harness the power of technology. There is a way forward that will enable us to grow our economies and protect the environment, and that’s called technology. We’ll meet our energy needs. We’ll be good stewards of this environment. Achieving these goals will require a sustained effort over many decades. This problem isn’t going to be solved overnight. (Bush 2007)
(Scrase and Smith, 2009:707-8).
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Bali meeting of the UNFCCC was impending. And there was a lot of pressure about getting a “Roadmap to Copenhagen.” On adaptation mitigation, technology transfer, a deal would be stuck at Copenhagen that was going to Save The World. And Bush had spent his time as president as a meat puppet for Dick Cheney and the oil companies. He was not in favour of any meaningful action on climate change because it might constrain his fossil fuel buddies. And so, when you can’t do full on denial what other fallbacks do you have other than a bit of lukewarm-ism, (“it’s not as bad as the hysterical activists are saying”) and of course, our old friend technology; technology will save the day.
What we learn is that technology will not save the day. It’s one of the most reliable instruments for the opponents of meaningful climate action.
What happened next? Bush stopped giving much of a shit about anything. And there is the famous so long from the world’s biggest polluter comment at the G7 meeting the following year.
The Bali COP did start the gun on negotiations. And Copenhagen was a complete failure. Pretty much a complete failure. And Bush? Bush was just an asshole.
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
Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, September 27th, 1995, the government has to admit that there has been no progress on reducing emissions.
The Keating Government’s action plan to curb emissions of harmful greenhouse gases has failed to produce any significant benefits in the almost three years since it was endorsed by the Commonwealth and all State and Territory governments.
Despite the plan, and a further commitment for action in this year’s Greenhouse 21C, independent analysts can find no evidence that any measure is working.
Six months after the launch of Greenhouse 21C, no director has been appointed to run its key initiative. Interviews were held only last week.
The director’s position carries only a middle-management grade in the Public Service, even though that person’s task will be to hammer out voluntary agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions with the heads of some of Australia’s biggest companies.
Gilchrist, G. 1995. Greenhouse Project Fails To Curb Gases. Sydney Morning Herald, 27 September, p11.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Australian governments had been making big promises about climate action, for some years. The most notable had been the “Interim Planning Target” in October 1990. And here we were five years later, with the carbon tax defeated in February, with new coal-fired power stations, new freeways. It was totally clear that the Australian Government was not pressing industry, and that the upward trajectory and emissions would continue.
What we learn is that getting governments to make promises is not actually that difficult. Getting them to keep those promises is.
What happened next? Well, two months after this story in December of 1995, the Keating government started promulgating ridiculous ABARE modelling on the global level to try and be more aggressive against the Berlin Mandate. In March of 1996, John Howard took office. And then the fun and games on climate delay and denial really kicked in.
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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard had spent 10 years being a complete douche on many issues, including climate change. Now, there was a federal election pending and he had released some ridiculous television adverts. A then new and exciting-ish group called Get Up dd spoof adverts. It’s easy to look powerful when kicking a man when he’s down. What’s more interesting with Get Up is how its model has fallen over since 2019. But there you have it.
What we learn is that satire could look powerful against a weak and wounded politician. When they’re in their pomp, it seems to bounce off. Maybe it does, maybe it suddenly undermines them. There’s that line in Somerset Morton’s Then and Now (an account of an ageing Machiavelli), where people can survive any hatred but they can’t survive mockery.
What happened next Howard not only lost government, but he lost his own seat as an MP. First time in 70 years. Labor’s Kevin Rudd became prime minister and screwed the pooch on many things, especially climate 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.
Forty four years ago, on this day, September 25th, 1980
“In the basement of the Fairmont Hotel three months earlier on the morning of September 25, 1980, a reporter asked California Governor Reagan whether he would speak on the Global 2000 Study. While the media heavily covered the report even prior to its release in the summer of 1980, Reagan was caught off guard by the reporter’s request because he was entirely unaware of the report’s existence.” (Henderson, 2014)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 339ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there had been a lot of publicity in the spring and summer about the Global 2000 report of Jimmy Carter. And Reagan, who by now had the Republican nomination sewn up, was merely revealing his complacency and laziness. He was famously very lazy. He wanted to just spend holidays on his ranch by the mid 80s, and people around him were contemplating invoking the 25th Amendment and replacing him with George HW Bush.
What we learn is that rich people back in those days could actively ignore environmentalist issues and not suffer any consequence. My how times have changed. Oh yes.
What happened next? Reagan became president. Global 2000 was in every sense defeated and the Heritage Foundation used it as a punching bag in the following years.
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
Henderson, G. (2014). Raising the Alarm: The Cultural Origins of Climate’denialism’in America, 1970-1988. Michigan State University. History.
Thirty-one years ago, on this day, September 24th, 1993 Pittsburgh hosts a touring museum exhibition about climate change and what needs to be done (spoiler: we didn’t do it).
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that when global warming became a thing in 1988/89 cultural institutions like museums started thinking, “well, what can we do? How do we respond?” These things take time to put together, schedules booked. So it was 1991/92 by the time a lot of these big displays were in place. And then of course, they have to tour to different parts of their country. And so hello, it’s late 1993 by the time he gets to Pittsburgh, by which time Rio is over a year old and Clinton has lost his BTU tax. So it all probably felt a little bit yesterday’s news.
What we learn There’s a time lag.
What happened next We shrugged our shoulders 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
Revkin, A. 1994. Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast
While US President Barack Obama told the UN Climate Summit [23 Sept 2014] that climate change will “define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other”, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop (replacing Tony Abbott, who did not attend) surmised the Australian position to “striking the responsible balance of safeguarding economic growth while taking action on climate change.”
Limbrick, 2014
And this was the event where Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, channelling his inner John Howard, did not attend, even though in New York the following day –
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Obama could afford to give all the soaring speeches because he wasn’t going to be up for re-election. And it’s his strong suit, isn’t it – soaring speeches. Legislating, not quite so much. Paris was coming. And soaring speeches make your followers feel good, don’t they? So everyone’s happy.
What we learn is that we are easily seduced by wonderful rhetoric from people who we can praise and then pat ourselves on the back for not being racist. Pro tip, not being racist is a little bit more complicated than very occasionally voting for a black person.
What happened next? Obama made all the money. Paris happened, 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.
