Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Denial Science Scientists United States of America

February 10, 2006 – James Hansen on science, politics and tropical storms…

Twenty years ago, on this day, February 10, 2006

“On February 10, 2006, the Friday of the week that George Deutsch resigned, Jim spoke at a conference on politics and science, sponsored by the New School for Social Research in Manhattan. (He was added at the last minute on account of his recent notoriety.) IN a talk derived from the Keeling talk, which was now about two months old, he decided to add a brief discussion of tropical storms, because the topic was “especially relevant to this conference.”

See these two pages from Mark Bowen’s Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming.

2006 Hansen at conference on science and politics at New School for Social Research (Bowen Censoring Science page 143)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Hansen had been abused, ignored, sidelined in 1989 by the George HW Bush administration, and had basically gone back to the lab (that’s no criticism of the man, btw).

The specific context was that by 2006 the climate issue was heating up again – the Kyoto Protocol had been ratified (thanks, Russia) – so the international negotiations were “back on”, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme was underway, and Al Gore’s film was about to come out.
Last summer (2005) Hurricane Katrina had hit New Orleans, with thousands dead.

What I think we can learn from this is that the Bush regime was full of assholes.

What happened next: Hansen started getting arrested at protests about coal plants and pipelines, and has kept on with the science.

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.

See this from 2008

James Hansen and Mark Bowen on Censored Science : NPR

Also on this day: 

February 10, 1995 – Faulkner folds on carbon tax – doesn’t have the numbers in Cabinet

February 10, 2006 – The Australian Conservation Foundation tries to get governments to take climate seriously… – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Obituaries

Vale Jon Kudelka, great Australian cartoonist

Sad news from Tasmania – Jon Kudelka has died from a brain tumor, aged 53.

Over three decades of cartooning he won many plaudits, and millions of fans of his work.

One of his most famous cartoons is of a scientist trying to warn of climate change.

In April last year he very kindly did an email interview for All Our Yesterdays, which you can read here. Of that cartoon he said ““If I did a sequel it would probably involve a scientist swearing a great deal”

If you have favourite Kudelkas (from the 10,000) please do post them here.

Categories
CO2 Newsletter

C02 Newsletter Vol. 1, no. 3 (Feb 1980) – “the problem is beginning to receive deserved attention in scientific, political, and economic institutions.”

The third edition of the CO2 Newsletter, published bi-monthly by American geologist William N. Barbat between 1979 and 1982 is live. You can download a pdf and see the full text here.

The eight page issue has a front page story on the Greenland ice sheet and sea level rise (and a full page analysis on page 3 “Glacial icemelt? How soon? How Fast?”

There’s also an editorial, feedback from readers, excerpts from recent reports and a concluding article “the cost of halting the CO2 buildup.”

It remains heart-breaking, of course. Barbat’s editorial begins

“The new decade begins on an optimistic note as the CO2 greenhouse problem is beginning to receive deserved attention in scientific, political, and economic institutions. Also this particular environmental issue may unite former adversaries in a common effort. “

Barbat had switched on to environmental problems over a decade earlier, including carbon dioxide build-up. In 1979 he started the Newsletter. It was intended to fill a

“communications gap by capsulizing both the published and unpublished reports on the CO2 problem which are deemed important. This newsletter will also publish original material. invited articles. and letters of inquiry, fact and opinion.”

Each 8 page Newsletter had a lead story, an editorial, excerpts of recent documents (reports, newspaper articles, scientific abstracts, testimony by scientists to Congressional hearings) and deeply researched and argued articles by Barbat about a range of issues. Most issues had feedback from readers.

Categories
Australia

February 9, 1990 – “in the end the rain comes down”? (Blue Sky Mining released)

Thirty six years ago, on this day, February 9, 1990

Blue Sky Mining is the seventh studio album by Australian alternative rock band Midnight Oil, released on 9 February 1990 under the Columbia Records label.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Oils had been around since the mid-1970s, doing extremely exciting (ymmv) music and lyrics. 10 to 1 is a stunner, and they kept it up.

The specific context was that well, they were on a roll. You can read about it (see what I did there?) here.

What I think we can learn from this is that good music is part of the “map” you need. Certainly a big part of my map.

What happened next: The Oils did a gig outside Exxon’s HQ.

May 30, 1990 – Midnight Oil do a gig outside Exxon’s HQ in New York – All Our Yesterdays

See also my piece on the album track “Shakers and Movers”

Midnight Oil’s “Shakers and Movers” – a profound beautiful gem of a song

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 9, 1956 – Scientists puzzle over where the carbon dioxide is going….

 February 9, 1970 – HRH Prince of Netherlands points to carbon dioxide build-up

February 9, 2007 – Virgin on the ridiculous

Categories
Australia Denial

 February 8, 2017 –  Morrison brings lump of lacquered coal into Parliament 

Nine years ago, on this day, February 8, 2017, Australian Treasurer (and soon to be Prime Minister) Scott Morrison brings lump of lacquered coal into Parliament  as part of his demented culture war.

To quote myself

A couple of years later, in the quarry-with-a-state-attached some people persist in calling “Australia”, the then-Treasurer (who would become Prime Minister), Scotty Morrison brandished a lump of coal in Parliament.  Some points to note: It was in the middle of a heatwave. He handed it on to one of the most absurd politicians of all time, Barnaby Joyce, who mimicked (?) wide-eyed joy at the gift.  The lump of dead matter (the coal, I mean) was provided by the Minerals Council of Australia, the industry lobby group that has done probably more than any other to stop meaningful climate action in Australia.  The lump was lacquered, so it wouldn’t smudge anyone’s hands – that’s the cleanest coal ever gets.

“Snowballs and morons and coal lumps, oh my”: on the hysterical materiality of old white men – All Our Yesterdays

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 406ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Liberal National Party had gone to the 1990 Federal Election target with an emissions reduction target for the year 2000 that was MORE ambitious than that of the Australian Labor Party.  But they didn’t win that election, and quickly decided they’d been stabbed in the back by the green movement. Since then, and especially under the leadership of John Howard from 1995, the party has been astonishingly evil on climate change.

The specific context was that the climate issue had become a tangled mess of bullshit, bringing down prime minister after prime minister.  And the fact that there was a heatwave gave Morrison no pause for thought, because thought isn’t really what Morrison does.

Also, he very probably believes that if climate change is “real” then it is god sorting out the sheep and goats – he’s a religious nutjob.

What I think we can learn from this is that the “leadership” on climate change is, well, absent.

What happened next:  Morrison toppled Turnbull, won the 2019 election (thanks, Queensland, love ya) and continued his shit-fuckery. The emissions kept climbing and the bill came due. As I write this, heatwaves are baking southern Australia.

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 8, 1956 – Roger Revelle sexes up the dossier to House Committee on Appropriations 

February 8, 1973 –  American ecologist explains carbon build-up to politicians

February 8, 1988 – BBC Horizon on The Greenhouse Effect

Categories
Technophilia technosalvationism United States of America

February 8, 1991 –  New York Times and climate tech nonsense

Thirty five years ago, on this day, February 8, 1991 the “Grey Lady” was peddling the usual soothing lullabies…

Technology Is Found to Exist To Cut Global Warming Gases – The New York Times

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

The broader context was that “technology will fix it” is the first cry of technocrats and politicians wary of upsetting their incumbent donors.  Sometimes technology does indeed fix things – vaccines are pretty fantastic, and so many other things.  But not always…

The specific context was that the climate issue had finally broken through in 1988. By early 1991 the negotiations for an international treaty were beginning, and the US line would be “technology will fix it.”  The New York Times, one mouthpiece for this worldview, was doing its job.

What I think we can learn from this is that we are a bright species, but not quite as bright as we think, and not bright enough to see that our brightness is causing problems that our brightness might not be able to fix.

What happened next:  The Times kept peddling this credulous nonsense. People wanted to believe it, so they did.  Only by the 2020s was that particular lullaby beginning to take on fingers-on-the-blackboard characteristics.

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 8, 1956 – Roger Revelle sexes up the dossier to House Committee on Appropriations 

February 8, 1973 –  American ecologist explains carbon build-up to politicians

February 8, 1988 – BBC Horizon on The Greenhouse Effect

Categories
United Kingdom

February 7, 2023 – DESNZ born; reshuffling the cards on the marked deck

Three years ago, on this day, February 7, 2023 – another departmental recombination…

Feb 7 2023 The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) is a ministerial department of the Government of the United Kingdom. It was established on 7 February 2023 by a cabinet reshuffle under the Rishi Sunak premiership. The new department took on the energy policy responsibilities of the former Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). The department’s first Secretary of State was Grant Shapps; he was previously the final Secretary of State at BEIS. The current secretary is Ed Miliband. The department is scrutinised by the Energy Security and Net Zero Select Committee. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 421ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that those running the UK Government periodically like to rebrand and reshuffle their departments. There can, of course, be very sound reasons for this.  Other times, it’s to allay public concern, or take the wind out of opponents sails etc.

The first “Department of the Environment” was founded in 1970 (A Wilson idea that the Heath Government continued with after the Conservatives staged a surprise win).

The specific context was that by 2023 the wheels were falling off the whole “Green Industrial Revolution” stuff that Boris Johnson had been promising.  So, throw the pieces in the air, see what comes down.

What I think we can learn from this is that reshuffles can “work.” Time tells, as she almost always does.

What happened next:  “Red Ed” (reader, he’s not that red) Miliband has been beavering away, and drawing endless ire from the tabloids and the Telegraph (though, to be fair, the Telegraph is basically a tabloid now).

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 7, 1979 – Met Office boss bullshits about his carbon dioxide stance

February 7, 1995 – Australian Treasurer claims UNFCCC treaty contains loopholes and get-out clauses – All Our Yesterdays

February 7, 1995 – Business Council of Australia vs a carbon tax. Of course
Categories
United Kingdom

February 6, 1975  – The Quest for Gaia

Fifty one years ago, on this day, February 6, 1975, the UK magazine New Scientist published an article about, well The Quest for Gaia.

Lovelock formulated the Gaia Hypothesis in journal articles in 1972[1] and 1974,[2] followed by a popularizing 1979 book Gaia: A new look at life on Earth. An article in the New Scientist of February 6, 1975,[39] and a popular book length version of the hypothesis, published in 1979 as The Quest for Gaia, began to attract scientific and critical attention.

Lovelock and Sidney Epton, “The Quest for Gaia,” New Scientist, 6 Feb. 1975, p. 304;

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 331ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Lovelock had been thinking about all this stuff for a while (see also his atmospheric pollution work for Shell in the 1960s!) here and here.

The specific context was that by the mid-1970s the idea that positivist science was good at some stuff and might also be missing bigger parts of the bigger picture had really caught on.

(see also Dr Who and the Green Death!)

What I think we can learn from this is that Lovelock’s hypothesis (disputed) has gained traction and attention, for reasons both sound and unsound.

What happened next:  The Gaia hypothesis got a signal boost during the excellent thriller “Edge of Darkness” in the mid-1980s.
Lovelock lived to a very ripe old age, and warned about anthropogenic climate change repeatedly.

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 6, 1969 – Senate Select Committee warned about CO2 build up by Professor Harry Bloom

February 6, 1995 – Australian business versus a carbon tax

February 6, 2001: ExxonMobil Lobbyist Calls on White House to Remove Certain Government Climate Scientists

February 6, 2007 – Rudd taunts Howard on 2003 ETS decision
Categories
Brief Rants Economics of mitigation

The models will kill us all – #BriefRants

I’m gonna start doing semi-regular rants, drawing on (okay, pointing you towards) stuff that I’ve already written here (4 years) and elsewhere. Some may end up as academic article submissions, or chapters in one of the books I am writing. First up: climate models, economic models and features not bugs.

So folks at Carbon Tracker Initiave and University of Exeter have put out a report

Recalibrating Climate Risk – Carbon Tracker Initiative

You can read about it on the Grauniad under the heading Flawed economic models mean climate crisis could crash global economy, experts warn | Green economy | The Guardian

I am old enough to remember all the talk in 2013 about “unburnable carbon” and “stranded assets”

I am even old enough to remember – 20 years ago now – the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.

Okay. In no particular order.

  1. Deep breath: We. Have. Known – if we wanted to – . For. A. Long. Time. That. “Our”. Economic. “Models”. Are. Shit.

Here’s one of my favourite quotes about this, from a 1980 book called Friendly Fascism

“If we just enlarge the pie, everyone will get more”. This has been the imagery of Capitalist growthmanship since the end of World War II- and I once did my share in propagating it. But the growth of the pie did not change the way the slices were distributed except to enlarge the absolute gap between the lion’s share and the ant’s. And whether the pie grows, or stops growing, or shrinks, there are always people who suffer from the behaviour of the cooks, the effluents from the oven, the junkiness of the pie, and the fact that they needed something more nutritious than pie anyway.”

2. The “economics of climate change” dates back further than a lot of people understand. In the mid-1970s the then newly-minted International Institute for Advanced Systems Analysis hosted seminars and study programmes on energy and also climate. I’ve blogged about these guys a lot.

One of the people they got do to some work, in 1975, was William Nordhaus. Nordhaus is an idiot, but one who has fancy graphs and is telling the rich what they want to hear, so of course he has won a “Nobel Prize” (the fake one, set up by the bank). This take-down is worth your time.

3. The economic models have been designed and used to spread bullshit about the costs of switching from fossil fuels. That’s not to say there are not HUGE economic, social, political, cultural, psychological etc costs involved in getting off fossil fuels – of course there are. But the models have been literally funded by the usual suspects to help keep the usual suspects rich. Check out the ABARE saga as one example of this use of absurd modelling to create “facts” around costs and so decrease pressure on the meat-puppet politicians (and shout out to Royce Kurmelovs for his recent archive dive and forthcoming article).

4. The economic models are lapped up and given credence by people (mostly denialist old men) who complain bitterly about the purported inaccuracy of climate models (the climate models are pretty good, though sometimes underestimate the speed and scale of physical changes.)

5. None of this will change until or unless civil society (which is broader than social movements) gets up on its hind legs and stays there, demanding actual change. That won’t happen, and even if it did, we have some already existential (and escalating) consequences about to slap us around the face and kick us in the nads, thanks to near forty years of political and social movement inadequacy.

6. That’s it. That’s the rant.

Things to read

Fressoz, J.P. 2025 In tech we trust: A history of technophilia in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) climate mitigation expertise – ERSS.

Keen, S. (2021). The appallingly bad neoclassical economics of climate change. Globalizations, 18(7), 1149–1177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2020.1807856

Pindick, R. 2015. The Use and Misuse of Models for Climate Policy | NBER

Schrickel, I. (2017)  Control versus complexity: approaches to the carbon dioxide problem at IIASA

Wynne, B. (1984) The Institutional Context of Science, Models, and Policy: The IIASA Energy Study. Policy Sciences

Categories
Science United Kingdom

February 5,  1980 – the Met Office beavers away…

Forty six  years ago, on this day, February 5 1980 the UK Met Office was beavering away at the carbon dioxide problem.

Met Office meeting abt C02 BJ dash 336 dash 2 (138).JPG        5/2/1980        PR Rowntree        Summary of conclusions reached during discussion of CO2 experiments.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Met Office had been aware of the idea of carbon dioxide build-up as a long-term warming influence since 1953 at the absolute latest (and in fact, all the way back to Arrhenius in 1895).

The specific context was that American scientists and politicians had been warming (see what I did there?) to the issue for a while.  The Met Office had, very reluctantly (thanks to its boss, John Mason) started scientific work in 1976, putting one of their brightest young research scientists on the case, with others.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have known about this problem for a very very long time.

What happened next:  Once Mason retired and was replaced by John Houghton, in 1983, the Met Office began to play a stronger and more useful role in investigating climate change, alongside the UEA Climatic Research Unit.

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 5, 1986 – Thomas Sankara Imperialism is the arsonist of our forests and savannas  – All Our Yesterdays

February 5, 1992 – Liberal leader Hewson snubs the Australian  Conservation Foundation

February 5, 1993 – Space Based Energy experiment takes place

February 5, 2007 – Australian Prime Minister trolled by senior journalist