Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Denial Germany

November 10, 1995 – moronic “Leipzig Declaration” by moronic denialists

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, November 10, 1995, idiot denialists do idiocy in Leipzig

1995 Nov. 9-10, 1995

Leipzig Declaration International Symposium on the Greenhouse Controversy, held in Leipzig, Germany and follow up on on Nov. 10-11, 1997.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Declaration

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.phptitle=Leipzig_Declaration_on_Global_Climate_Change

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the denialists had been in full throat since 1989. In Leipzig, a bunch of denialists were making one of their periodic idiotic declarations that they don’t believe in 19th century physics.

And because it contains doctors and professors and maybe even a couple of Nobel Prize winners in different fields, it’s gonna get some media attention. It’s gonna get quoted in various Parliaments and so it came to pass. It’s a tactic that they use to try and puff themselves up, to pretend that they have some credibility. It sounds scientific, it sounds responsible and adult. But it’s actually just the petulant musings of a bunch of damaged boys (and it is mostly boys) who don’t like the fact that there are consequences at a physical level for their dreams of avarice and domination. Yeah, I’m all out of sympathy today. 

On the same day, the Leipzig twunts were being rewarded for their cowardice, a bunch of brave black people were being murdered for their courage. 

What I think we can learn from this

you can rely on rich old white privilege men to have a higher fuck Todd potential, quote quotient. You can rely on military dictatorships to murder Earth defenders.

What happened next

The denialists kept denying; the Leipzig Declaration was joined by the Oregon petition. All part of the larger asshole manoeuvres. And future generations continued to get screwed. 

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.

Categories
IPCC Swtizerland

November 9, 1988 – Tolba gives “Warming Warning” speech at first IPCC meeting

Thirty five years ago, on this day, November 9, 1988, the director of the United Nations Environment Program, the Egyptian scientist Mostafa Tolba, gave a stark opening address at the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Tolba, M.: 1988, ‘Warming: Warning’, Opening Speech at the First Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, November 9.

Oreskes and Conway 2010, page 184

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the IPCC had been set up after negotiations, especially with the Americans. They wanted an intergovernmental panel that was frankly dependent, because they didn’t want to get “bounced” in the way they perceived they had been over the question of Ozone, by Bob Watson and his ilk (including Tolba).

What I think we can learn from this is that the institutional settings the terms of reference, who’s going to fund what, who’s going to deliver what and how matter.

What happened next

The IPCC delivered its first assessment report in 1990. Was attacked (see Ted Benton in the Greening of Machiavelli anecdote about Sundsvall).

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.

Categories
Academia United Kingdom

November 9, 2000 – Tyndall Centre launched

Twenty three years ago, on this day, November 9, 2000, an academic collaboration finally ground into existence, after a 1997 Tony Blair election promise…

The Tyndall Centre is a national United Kingdom centre for trans-disciplinary research on climate change. It is dedicated to advancing the science of integration, to seeking, evaluating and facilitating sustainable solutions to climate change and to motivate society through promoting informed and effective dialogue. The Centre was constituted in October 2000 and launched officially on 9 November 2000.

http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/contacts/v.php?id=2713

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Blair’s Labour Party had made a lot of promises in the run up to the 1997 election. One of these was the creation of a scientific body in the UK to look at climate change. And so on this day in November 2000, over three years later – nice sense of urgency Tony! The Tyndall Centre had been launched.

This was against the backdrop of stalling international climate negotiations in the midst of the uncertainty about whether Gore or Bush would be president in the end. George W. Bush’s dad’s mates on the Supreme Court fixed it for him. With the collapse of the negotiations at The Hague it was all looking pretty bleak. 

What the Tyndall Centre would do, if one were to be cynical about it, is offer institutional homes for disciplinary and interdisciplinary work around climate change. Ultimately there’s something deeper and longer going on here isn’t there? There is a failure to really solve these problems. So you have to ask yourself, why do we keep doing what we keep doing? It’s because this change is really difficult and it’s comforting to keep doing what we’re doing. Fewer costs. It’s easier to be a winner on a losing team than a loser on a losing team because even if you switch, you yourself will not derive benefit, but I digress.

What I think we can learn from this

Academics gonna academic. It’s no bad thing.

What happened next

Tyndall is still going, still producing great work (I mean that sincerely, not snarkily!).

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.

Categories
Australia Denial United Kingdom

November 8, 2013 – “One religion is enough” says John Howard

Ten years ago, on this day, November 8, 2013, John Howard gave a speech at the Global Warming “Policy” “Foundation” with the title “One Religion is Enough“

and 

Same day – Typhoon Haiyan, known in the Philippines as Typhoon Yolanda, was one of the strongest tropical cyclones ever recorded, which devastated portions of Southeast Asia, particularly the Philippines.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396,7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard had been booted out as Prime Minister, and even MP, partly because he’d been such a terrible dickhead on climate, as befits old white conservative men. 

The other context is that some “charity” called the Global Warming Policy Foundation had been set up and were holding annual lectures. So it seemed like a good idea to get little Johnny on.

It’s an interesting title, isn’t it, “one religion is enough”? Well, if we’re only going to have one religion, my vote is a for either a particularly humane form of Buddhism, or Fuck it, let’s just go to paganism. Let’s get rid of the bearded sky gods. And especially when the bearded sky gods have been whittled down to one, because that seems to have caused no end of trouble. Or, if not caused, it been a useful adjunct to keeping that particular shit show on the road…

Aaand breathe….

What I think we can learn from this is that anti-reflexive organisations are good at gaming the media, they knew that this would get outrage and clicks. Makes them feel like they exist. 

What happened next

Well, the weather vane, Tony Abbott also gave a speech at the GWPF, and it’ll be interesting to see if the Global Warming Policy Foundation finds Scott Morrison too much of a reputational risk to them.

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.

Categories
Activism

November 7, 2022 – journalist covering JSO protest arrested 

One year ago, on this day, November 7, 2022, Hertfordshire Police arrest a journo covering a Just Stop Oil protest.

On 21 Dec the police have to admit they breached his human rights…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 416ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that various police forces had clearly got the message from various Home Secretaries that it was open season on protesters and journalists. “Who will rid us of this troublesome priest/freelance journalist.” 

What was interesting was that there was still outrage and fear and even a backing down by the Hertfordshire police. Whether that lasts or whether the forces of darkness have successfully chipped away at another of the hard-won protections remains to be seen. 

What I think we can learn from this even if it’s a game and we’re cynical, you need to defend laws protecting people.

What happened next

More JSO protests, now with added violence from bystanders. The government wanting to use the word “extremist” against anyone it doesn’t like… The usual slide into authoritarianism…

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.

Categories
Australia

November 7, 2000 – Australian “The Heat is on” report released

Twenty three years ago, on this day, November 7, 2000, a committee of Australian federal MPs released a report about climate policy, in the wake of the government’s intransigence…

‘The heat is on: Australia’s Greenhouse Future’ Senate Committee report released:

The report criticises the Government for a lack of commitment to climate change policy. More than 100 recommendations are made.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard had made it pretty clear that he wasn’t going to do anything on climate. So Labor and Democrat politicians, especially in the Senate, had done what you do in this circumstance – you use the parliamentary system to create space for dissident voices and critique of government policy, in the hope of making at least some government ministers and governing party members sit up and take notice. Maybe get some new ideas going, give NGOs a sense that they’re influencing matters, and keep the whole show – in every sense – on the road.

What I think we can learn from this

Reports always need to be read in context…

What happened next

The Howard government lost no sleep, and kept on being what it was.

Am I too cynical? Is that possible? Can you be cynical enough? The game is the game. 

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.

Categories
International processes Swtizerland

November 6, 1990 – Second World Climate Conference underway

Thirty three years ago, on this day, November 6, 1990, the consequential bits of the “Second World Climate Conference” began in Geneva. That is to say, the politicians turned up (the scientists had been hard at work for some days already).

[see here for a Conversation article about protests etc]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the first world climate conference in Geneva, in February of 1979 had been pretty much scientists and a few policy makers. You can read various accounts of it. But the short version is that those who were wanting a bold statement that said “carbon dioxide is a real problem and we need to start taking action now” were unable to overcome the veto of people like John Mason, head of the UK Meteorological Office who was a long term climate skeptic. 

The following ten years of science and advocacy had pushed climate onto the agenda. The second world climate conference had been pushed back six months so that it could suit political needs because this was no longer purely a scientific endeavour. Since 1985, new climate scientists had been trying to engage policymakers directly and urgently or beginning in late 1985.

The existence of the conference had forced the question of emissions reductions targets onto the table, because no politician wanted to get booed and heckled by their colleagues and the media. So, for example, while Australia had come up with a provisional or Interim Planning Target, as it was called, very few other nations had. There were protests, organised by Greenpeace, very polite, as the Swiss had it, (see my Conversation article). 

What I think we can learn from this

Want to shake loose the bureaucracy? Engineer events as action-forcers I guess? Or rather decision-forcers The action will depend on implementation, which may or may not happen….

What happened next

At the beginning of 1991, pretty much simultaneous with the push to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait the climate negotiations finally started. 

There was a third world climate conference, but it was a denialist event in Moscow, and no one speaks of 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.

Categories
International processes Norway

November 6, 1989 – Noordwijk conference – “alright, we will keep talking”

Thirty four years ago, on this day, November 6, 1989, an international meeting about climate change began in Norway. It was one of many.in that period. It was to review the progress of the then-new IPCC and have discussions about a possible treaty (opposed by the US). 

“Attendees included ministers of 68 countries. The goal of the conference was creating a binding agreement on CO₂ emissions, which almost succeeded. The conference was organized by the Dutch environment minister Ed Nijpels and prepared by climatologist Pier Vellinga.[3]

The United States, Japan, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom did not want to make an agreement about the reduction of emissions. Even discussions about stabilizing emissions turned out to be difficult”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noordwijk_Climate_Conference

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the US had been doing its level best to prevent any discussion of rich nations adopting targets for emissions reductions. Japan and Great Britain and the Soviet Union were also onboard with that. There had been a meeting at The Hague to try to kick this loose. The big nations were not invited. By Nordwijk it was all becoming a bit uncomfortable. But if you read Nathaniel Rich’s version, you get the idea that because Bill Reilly invited the wrong underling it all went tits up. It’s a little bit more complicated than that. And the brutal review of Losing Earth that I mentioned last year, it’s really worth reading. 

What I think we can learn from this

Statecraft is statecraft is statecraft.

What happened next

A flurry of meetings in 1990, on climate, environment, development etc. Culminated in the Second World Climate Conference. Then the negotiations for a climate treaty…

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.

Categories
Australia

November 6, 1988 – Australian cartoonist nails response to #climate change

November 6 1988 

On this day in 1988 the Canberra Times ran a cartoon by Geoff Pryor nailed the Australian response to “the Greenhouse Effect” (and is still tolerably accurate today, 35 years later)

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110611748/12738842

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351,7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had just been the “Greenhouse 88” conference in all capital cities and Darwin. Everyone was grappling with “what is to be done?”  The coal industry was sitting tight, thinking it was all a fad that would blow ever…

What we learn is that we have learnt nothing.

What happened next?  Ideas for a carbon price and extra funding on energy efficiency and renewable energy were defeated. The coal export and LNG export infrastructure were radically expanded, and a small number of people got very very rich.  Pryor kept drawing for the Canberra Times until 2008, and then did some more drawing for the Saturday Paper.

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.

Categories
United Kingdom

November 5, 1969 – House of Lords question about the greenhouse effect

Fifty four years ago, on this day, November 5, 1969, Jestyn Phillips, a member of the House of Lords said the following – 

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS My Lords, can my noble friend say whether he and British Railways have taken account of the fact that what were abnormal temperatures last summer may not be abnormal if we continue to discharge carbon dioxide into the air by the burning of various fossil carbons, so increasing the greenhouse effect?

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1969/nov/05/railways-use-of-continuous-welded-rail

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that it was clear that some members of the Lords were paying attention to what was being written in newspapers, magazines (including the Listener in April 1969). And the idea of the greenhouse effect was out there and of concern by 1969, including in the Financial Times and so forth. 

What I think we can learn from this

By November 1969, “even” politicians were talking about it, drawing (possibly fallacious) connections.

What happened next

In January 1970 a TV programme “And On the Eighth Day”, directed by Richard Broad, appeared.

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.