Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

August 18, 2002 – David Kemp is delusional

Twenty-four years ago, on this day, August 17th, 2002,

“In 2002, for example, Federal Environment Minister, David Kemp boasted – without foundation – that ‘increasingly the international community recognises that although we have taken the view that it is not in Australia’s national interests to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, we are actually at the forefront of nations that are taking the responsible attitude,’ adding, ‘We have to be a good international citizen’: “ABC,

‘Minister Defends Position on Greenhouse Gas Emissions’, Insiders, 18 August 2002

http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2002/s651631.htm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 374ppm. As of 2026, 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 climate issue was flaring up again, in part because George W. Bush, appointed by the Supreme Court as President of the United States, (despite losing the popular vote, and probably having lost Florida) in 2000 had pulled the United States out of the negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol, and crucially, Australia had followed suit in June 2002 two months before Kemp says what Kemp says,

The specific context

On September 10 2001 George W. Bush had apparently asked John Howard whether he was going to back the US or the rest of the world on carbon dioxide and Kyoto. Howard had, of course, said, “I’m backing the US.” Anyway, here we see David Kemp, who had replaced Robert Hill as Environment Minister. spouting utter bilge. Surely, as an intelligent man, he must have known that it was bilge.

What I think we can learn from this is that intelligent people are entirely capable of self-delusion, and ambitious, obedient intelligent people are capable of convincing themselves to believe whatever they need to believe to get through the day. 

What happened next Kemp kept spouting this stuff, and they kept working with the Americans on so-called technology partnerships, including spectacularly the AP six, which was an attempted spoiler operation against the Kyoto Protocol and meanwhile, the emissions climbed, the concentration climbed, the consequences became readily and speedily apparent, and here we are.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 18, 1975 – it’s gonna get hotter, not cooler, say scientists

August 18, 1991- Business Council of Australia says “fuck you, future generations,” rejects energy efficiency measures

August 18, 1996, Ex-CSIRO #climate boss shows he has lost the plot

August 18, 1997 – MENSA turns out to be dumb as a rock.

Categories
Australia

August 17, 1970 – letter about pollution (inc carbon dioxide) and power in Sydney Morning Herald

Fifty six years ago, on this day, August 17th, 1970, scientist Charles Munro-Watson had a letter in the Sydney Morning Herald: “one does not know the long-term ecological effects of the addition of carbon dioxide to our atmosphere.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 325ppm. As of 2026, 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 environmental issues and questions over energy production, especially, had become quite live in the late 60s, even before the first oil shock of 1973. Questions around carbon dioxide build up were also being asked. And here we see a letter from a prominent Australian scientist of the time to the Australian newspaper back when it was still right wing and conservative, but before it totally jumped the shark.

Actually, jumping the shark is the wrong usage, because it applied to Happy Days, which had moments of grace and usefulness, which I don’t really think the Australian ever had. 

What I think we can learn from this is that Munro was a mensch. Munro also was bezzies with Stuart Bailey, a physicist at University of Sydney, who knew all about carbon dioxide build up, and as the author of the Frontiers in Science cartoons, had been banging on about it in 1965, 1968-69 and so forth. 

What happened next Munro remained very active on questions around what sources of energy Australia should be investigating and exploiting, and he was very much in favour of renewables, especially solar. He died in 1991. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 17, 1982 – Crispin Tickell sounds the alarm bell

August 17, 1988 – “The Greening of Congress

August 17, 1989 – Space shields to save the earth…

August 17, 1997 – Paper etc industries want “greenhouse minister”

August 17, 1998 – Emissions Trading considered (again)

August 17, 2002 – Pacific states urge Australia to sign Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 17, 2006 – Howard attacks State government plans to introduce a carbon trading scheme.

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 17th, 2006,

Prime Minister John Howard has attacked state government plans to introduce a carbon trading scheme, claiming it will cripple the resource industry and cause massive price increases for petrol, gas and electricity. He told Parliament yesterday that according to a recent Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics report, a 50 per cent cut in Australian emissions by 2050 ”would lead to a 10 per cent fall in in GDP, a 20 per cent fall in real wages, a carbon price equivalent to doubling of petrol prices and a staggering 600 per cent rise in electricity and gas prices.” [Pearse 2007 is SCATHING on this]

 Beeby, R. 2006. Howard attacks carbon trading scheme. Canberra Times, 17 August, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. As of 2026, 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 there had been various efforts to get a federal carbon tax, and then an emissions trading scheme in Australia. Two emissions trading scheme proposals had gone before John Howard’s cabinet. In 2000 Nick Minchin had killed it off. In 2003 John Howard had killed it off. Insert links

The specific context was that from early 2006 onwards, and especially late 2006 the pressure for climate action became unavoidable, and here we see just before the issue breaks through in September, John Howard trying to attack state governments for being proactive on an issue that he wants to stay dead and buried.

What I think we can learn from this is that 10 years is a long time to be Prime Minister, and Howard had become more isolated and doctrinaire and had lost his feel for issues and simply couldn’t change his ways. And when he tried in 2007 it convinced absolutely nobody.

What happened next The idea of an emissions trading scheme didn’t lie down and die, and in fact, Kevin Rudd, as leader of the opposition, appointed Ross Garnaut to look into an emissions trading scheme, and this then morphed into a federal scheme. Garnaut was then sidelined because he was unwilling to sign off on enormous giveaways to big business, which Rudd felt was wise, and the rest is history. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 17, 1982 – Crispin Tickell sounds the alarm bell

August 17, 1988 – “The Greening of Congress

August 17, 1989 – Space shields to save the earth…

August 17, 1997 – Paper etc industries want “greenhouse minister”

August 17, 1998 – Emissions Trading considered (again)

August 17, 2002 – Pacific states urge Australia to sign Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Australia

August 16, 1976 – Energy shortages will be pleasant

Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 16th, 1976,

16 August 1976 – Energy expert shortage pleasant in the Melbourne Age

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 331ppm. As of 2026, 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 there had been a big oil shock in 1973-74 where oil prices had quadrupled, thanks to an Arab embargo of exports to countries that had supported Israel in the Yom Kippur War, and doubtless within this, the oil companies were finding ways to push up their prices, a nice little ancillary benefit.

The specific context was The oil shock had focused the mind on energy shortages, and here we see someone suggesting that if energy were less plentiful and more expensive, it might not automatically be a bad thing. This should be read against the context of E. F. Schumacher, “Small is Beautiful,” the back-to-the-land movement, and all the rest of it with carbon dioxide build up just creeping in around the edges now just starting to be that thing that gets mentioned.

What I think we can learn from this is that there were debates around how much energy we should use. Those debates were sidelined then, they’re being sidelined now. Nothing really changes, because we are led by neurotic narcissists who need power to bolster their self-image (and to get rich, obvs), and they tell themselves stories about the public good on some occasions, or not on others. 

What happened next – debates around sufficiency, degrowth etc continue to be ignored, scoffed at etc.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 16, 1971 – “The changing chemistry of the oceans.”

August 16 1984 – “Why are they lying to our children?” – what a 40 year old propaganda campaign can tell us about today (and tomorrow’s) cultural battles. #Climate #CorporatePropaganda

August 16, 2000 – No future for the Sydney Futures Exchange

August 16, 2002 – “Oil Lobby Urges Bush to Keep Climate Change Off the Table at Earth Summit

August 16, 2010 – Polar Bears going through the motions

August 16, 2012 – Tony Windsor calls Tony Abbott an “absolute disgrace” on carbon tax/climate

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

August 15, 2000 – “Plan to bury Greenhouse Gas”

Twenty six years ago, on this day, August 15th, 2000,

Emissions soar 17 per cent despite $1b spent on crisis

AUSTRALIAN scientists are investigating a scheme to bury carbon dioxide underground as a way of reducing our burgeoning greenhouse gas emissions.

A research team, which is in the middle of a four-year project, claims it can find a cost-effective way of sealing carbon dioxide in the earth, safely and permanently, by putting it back where it came from.

They are looking at sedimentary basins across Australia – deep saline areas, coal seams which cannot be mined and depleted oil and gas reservoirs – for spaces big enough to hold big volumes of carbon dioxide.

The continuing research will be presented at an international conference on greenhouse gas control technologies in Cairns today, after new figures which warned of the effects of global warming.

Rose, R. 2000. Plan To Bury Greenhouse Gas. The West Australian, 15 August, p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 370ppm. As of 2026, 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 idea of capturing and storing carbon dioxide because of climate change went back to 1975 when Italian physicist Cesar Marchetti did some back of envelope calculations as part of an International Institute for Advanced Systems Analysis workshop. This had been built on, looked at, and in the late 90s examined a bit more deeply and disregarded because it was palpable nonsense,

The specific context was that with the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 it was clear that actual emissions reductions for rich nations might be unavoidable, and therefore carbon capture and storage no longer looked too expensive and too ridiculous to consider. There had been a series of international workshops on greenhouse gas technologies from the early 90s onwards, and here we see another such meeting. 

What I think we can learn from this is that a technology can be laughed at, but come back later, because it now meets either an ecological, economic, or political need.

What happened next Carbon capture and storage really started to take off by the mid 2000s as a political solution to an ecological and social problem. There was a spike in interest in the second half of the 2000s especially in the lead up to the Copenhagen climate summit. It then went away again, and it has now come back, but seems to be as far as I can tell, and I really can’t be bothered to look closely because it is way later than anyone things – on life support.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 15, 1952 – flash flood – caused by Weather Modification experiment? 

August 15, 1977 – “Theoretical climate effects of doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide content

August 15, 1989 – Queenslander mayor says the greenhouse effect is like“a bird urinating in the Tweed River while in flight”

August 15, 2010 – a walk against warming fails to catch fire. #RepertoireRot

August 15, 2010 – Russia halts grain exports because of droughts and heatwaves

Categories
Australia

August 14, 1912 – That wretched news clipping that keeps doing the rounds was first published

UPDATE – Article was originally published July 17, 1912 – and then reprinted almost a month later in a New Zealand newspaper. That reprint here. Thanks to Sue Nethercott for pointing out my error.

One hundred and fourteen years ago, on this day, August 14th, 1912, this was published

https://theconversation.com/for-110-years-climate-change-has-been-in-the-news-are-we-finally-ready-to-listen-188646

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 300ppm. As of 2026, 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 it had been understood and accepted for decades that carbonic acid (carbon dioxide) trapped heat (see Eunice Foote and John Tyndall). In the 1890s Svante Arrhenius had spent a year calculating what would happen if the amount of carbon dioxide in the air doubled. The world would get significantly warmer, he showed, but he thought this was a good thing (less severe Swedish winters) and would take thousands of years.

The specific context was that the American magazine Popular Mechanics had done an article on whether the climate was changing and what the various theories were. This had then been excerpted/syndicated all over the show.

What I think we can learn from this is that people misunderstand how well accepted or known the carbon dioxide build-up theory was, and post it online as if “they” “knew.” “They” really didn’t. The absolute earliest date you can say “politicians etc really ought to have paid close attention” is 1953, and really, to be fair, the late 1950s…  

What happened next  People keep posting this damn thing as a conversation-ending-cliche on social media and I wish they would stop but they don’t and won’t.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 14, 1971 – Stanford Prison Study begins…

August 14, 1989 – South Australia creates “interdepartmental committee on #climate change”…

August 14, 2000 – Carbon Capture Technology will save us. Oh yes.

August 14, 2002 – Australian economists urge Kyoto Protocol ratification

August 14, 2007 – CCS report in Australia “between a rock and a hard place”

August 14, 2021 – It’s raining (again) oh no our world’s at an end…

Categories
Australia

August 11, 1999 – Australian Senate calls for a report on climate

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, August 11th, 1999,

On 11 August 1999 the Senate referred the following matters to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in August 2000 (which was later extended to 8 November 2000): (what became Nov 2000 “The Heat is On” report

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm. As of 2026, 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 if you were paying attention, you could see that the domestic and international policies around climate change were heading in a bad direction. Although the Kyoto Protocol had been signed, and even by various nations, its actual ratification and passage into international law was looking shaky, and scientists were saying it wouldn’t be enough. By this time, you had Green senators and the Democrats in the Australian Senate whowere also on the case and they used the usual procedures to get a report to be written. Sometimes senate reports can be really consequential and influential, especially when an issue is new – for example, the 1968-69 Senate Standing Committee on Air Pollution and also the one on Water Pollution; they were influential. This one not so much, but what do you expect, it’s a crowded field by now.

What I think we can learn from this is that politicians do what politicians can within parliament. If you really want to see social change, it’s parliament yes, but it’s Parliament Plus, it’s all of the social movements and the civil society groups. But they can rarely get their game faces on for any length of time, and anyway, they’re up against incredibly powerful, clever, determined, well-resourced incumbency actors. And so it came to pass. 

What happened next it would be 2006 before climate change became “an issue” in Australian politics. Not that this helped particularly.

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 11, 2005 – Bob Brown in the Senate 

August 11, 2005 – Greenpeace protest Hazelwood power station

August 11, 2009 – Kevin Rudd is actually shut up (by a power cut) 

August 11, 2010 – @TheOnion reports “Millions Of Barrels Of Oil Safely Reach Port In Major Environmental Catastrophe” 

Categories
Australia

August 10, 2001 – Major Australian parties tell OECD, future generations to get fucked

Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 10th, 2001,

CANBERRA, Aug 9 AAP – An OECD call for Australia to introduce environment taxes was today ruled out by the government and opposition despite support from rural backbenchers.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s latest report showed that Australia’s economy was faring well, and that a carbon tax would be a cost-effective way to benefit the environment.

“Setting up a trading scheme or a carbon tax of broad sectoral coverage is the most cost-effective way to achieve emissions reductions,” the OECD report said.

Environment Minister Robert Hill branded the call Eurocentric, saying the government was instead focused on building economic growth with a low-tax environment.

“We’re not going to impose another tax,” Senator Hill said.

The government wanted strong economic growth built on a low tax environment, low interest rates and low inflation, he said.

A business/environmental roundtable comprising the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), Southcorp, Elders Ltd, ABN Amro, Berri Ltd and CSIRO today called for tax breaks to encourage investment in the environment.

McSweeny, L. 2001. Fed – Major parties reject OECD call for environment tax. Australian Associated Press, 10 August

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 371ppm. As of 2026, 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 very briefly in 1988 to say 1990 professed to take a positive proactive position as a middle power on environmental issues, including climate. But that was never deep seated, and by 1991 the tune coming out of Canberra and state capitals was changing, because well, Who pays the piper calls the tune, and who pays the piper are the extractive industries.

The specific context was that in 1997 the Australian federal government had extorted a very generous deal at the climate conference in Kyoto. And it was looking like they would still not ratify it, and it was looking like they still wouldn’t have anything approaching an emissions trading scheme or any price on carbon dioxide. There had already been one cabinet proposal in 2000 defeated thanks to the machinations of South Australian Senator Nick Minchin. So the OECD had said, “look, you guys really need a carbon tax to incentivise energy efficiency and technological innovation and so forth” and both the major political parties turned around and said the OECD and future generations can get fucked. In essence that’s what they said, and they meant it, and they still mean it. 

What I think we can learn from this is that democracy only works if you have an educated population that is capable of forming its own groups, which cannot be co-opted, repressed, and exhausted by the state and the corporate sector. And in the absence of an educated populace that can do that, in the absence of a genuinely independent and inexhaustible civil society, you end up with “demonstration elections” and a more or less rapid descent into the maelstrom in the Edgar Allan Poe sense of it, but without the happy ending.

What happened next – Australia got a carbon tax – after astonishingly bloody political battles – for a year and a bit (2012-2013) until the next government that came along axed it.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 10, 1974 – Stockholm conference on climate modelling ends

August 10, 1978 – Ford Pinto deaths spark class action lawsuit 

August 10, 1980 – “Energy, Climate and the Future” seminar in Melbourne

August 10, 2000 – States’ greenhouse gas failure 

August 10, 2003 – a UK temperature record tumbles… 

August 10, 2021- climate protest with burning pram… 

Categories
Australia

August 5, 1980 – carbon dioxide build-up discussed in the South Australian parliament

Forty six years ago, on this day, August 6th, 1980, a South Australian MP shows he knows.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 338ppm. As of 2026, 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 a large deposit of uranium had been discovered in South Australia, and there was debate about whether to start digging it up and exporting it. The Labor government of the day, under Don Dunstan, was somewhat split. The Liberal Party was all for it, and once they took power in 1979, they were banging on about the benefits of Roxby Downs economically, and so forth, and they were also using the argument that only nuclear power could deal with carbon dioxide build up, and that’s what you see here. 

What I think we can learn from this is that awareness of ecological problems is not the preserve of hippies, but ecological problems have various possible solutions, and some of those solutions are extremely technocratic. But we should also be careful about this word “technocratic” as a slur and a swear word, because you have to ask yourself, are vaccines technocratic? Is solar power technocratic? Then, of course, you can slap adjectives on in front of technocratic, but I’m not sure that really always helps so much, but I digress. 

What happened next. Roxby started exporting in 1987.

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 5, 1971 – First “South Pacific Forum” happens

August 5, 1997 – “Climate Change Policies in Australia” briefing 

August 5, 1997 – Australian politician calls for “official figures” on #climate to be suspended because they are rubbery af 

August 5, 2010 – academics call for insurance industry to get involved in climate fight 

Categories
Australia Denial

August 3, 2013- How commentators and the blogosphere treat climate sceptics

Thirteen years ago, on this day, August 3rd, 2013,

Robyn Williams: Did you hear Tom Griffiths the historian on Late Night Live last Tuesday on those who deny climate change? As if it’s a matter of belief.

Tom Griffiths: Yes, isn’t that a very interesting way of undermining understanding of what is a scientific theory. Scientific theory is not a matter of negotiation, it’s not a matter of voting, it’s not a matter of belief. Dissent is only credible if it’s founded on testable evidence and has an alternative holistic theory. And I believe that the IPCC has probably made a mistake in using the word ‘consensus’, which we hear a lot, because consensus sounds like politics, not science. It evokes compromise and negotiation, it suggests somehow the majorities are instrumental and possibly temporary. And it seems to allow space for contrary or dissenting opinions without need for new evidence, that you can have a political stance or an emotional stance or a stance on belief. And sceptics and contrarians will often use those terms about belief, about dissent, about being an agnostic on this issue, as if it is a matter for personal belief.

Redfearn, G. 2013. How commentators and the blogosphere treat climate sceptics, 3 August. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/how-commentators-and-the-blogosphere-treat-climate-sceptics/4858714#transcript

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 397ppm. As of 2026, 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 denial had not gone away, and was continuing to be funded where necessary. But also we should never forget there are just people who have resolutely decided that 19th century physics must be some gigantic conspiracy, and that if a problem involves collective action via states, then it must automatically be a hoax. 

The specific context was that journalists and academics always like to have something to write articles about, because published articles is how you keep score, how you get grants, how you get professorships, how you get corner officers, and PhD students you can bully/steal from, and so forth. 

What I think we can learn from this: sceptics, like the poor, will always be with us

What happened next. Well, the bullshit just keeps on bullshitting, doesn’t it? And the academics keep on scribbling.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 3,1958 – under the pole goes the Nautilus 

August 3, 1970 – Nixon warned about climate change and icecaps melting 

August 3, 1988 – Exxon tries to downplay “the greenhouse effect.” Again. 

August 3, 2019 – another eco-fascist massacre