Category: Australia

Categories
Australia Denial Uncategorized

November 29, 1990 and 1994 – Australian denial fools (Fred Singer and Brian Tucker)

Thirty-four and thirty years ago, on this day, November 29th, 1990/1994, two climate denialists who really ought to have known better (and did, before idiocy overtook them) were spouting their nonsens.

29 November 1990 Fred Singer The Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? Tasman Institute Seminar

and

29 November 1994 – Canberra Times piece IPA whining about greenhouse, wheeling out Brian Tucker, who had been head of the CSIRO’s Atmospheric Sciences Division.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm/359ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is this: We have two examples of high status dickheads, one American, one Australian, denying the reality of climate change. What were both sort of relatively crucial moments in history. So in 1990, Ros Kelly had just come back from the Second World Climate Conference. The negotiations for a climate treaty were about to begin in earnest within a couple of months. In the second case, there was a battle going on about whether to have a carbon tax. And in both cases, the denialists will have said, “Oh, it’s all a scare. It’s all hysteria. Nothing should be done, needs to be done. And any action that is taken is merely rent seeking and appealing to silly ill informed portions of the electorate.” 

Gee, that went well didn’t it? And I want to say this again. Fuck you, and burn in hell you pricks. 

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 29, 1973 – Australian politician warns of climate change

NOVEMBER 29, 1974 – SWEDISH PRIME MINISTER SAYS “RISK OF A CHANGED CLIMATE DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES … [IS] OF UTTER IMPORTANCE”

November 29, 1988 – Australian parliamentarians taught climate

Categories
Australia

 November 28, 2001 – “Stellar team for sun-powered debate” in Adelaide

Twenty-three years ago, on this day, November 28th, 2001,

FOOTBALLERS, media identities, politicians and scientists have little in common but tonight they unite for solar energy. They will be at the Adelaide Convention Centre for a public debate from 6pm on the future of solar power.

The debate features ABC science presenter Robyn Williams, former Adelaide lord mayor Dr Jane Lomax-Smith, CEO of UK solar electric power company Solar Century Dr Jeremy Leggett, Griffith University professor Ian Lowe, Advertiser youth columnist Mia Handshin, author of more than 90 publications on solar power and energy Don Osborne, and AFL player and politics student Che Cockatoo-Collins.

Freeborn, A. 2001. Stellar team for sun-power debate.Adelaide Advertiser,28 November 2001 P. 20

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that South Australia was back under Labor control. And therefore, it was trying to be more progressive on climate than the Liberals had been. And one thing to do was to get a bunch of celebrities together, hold hands, have a few PowerPoint. I’m being cynical because that’s who I am. But ultimately, it’s this sort of event that creates a “buzz.” 

 What happened next, South Australia kept acting on some of the green issues. Premier Mike Rann created the “Thinker in Residence” post and a couple of those people were very explicitly environment focused, for example, Stephen Schneider. South Australia has been making the running, especially penetration of renewables. So you know, you can be cynical if you want, (and I do) but sometimes something comes from the celebrities and the PowerPoints. They’re necessary, perhaps, but not sufficient. But maybe they’re not necessary. Maybe there’s correlation, not causation.

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 28, 1976 – climate modelling workshop in USA

November 28, 2008 – somebody shuts down a coal plant, solo

Categories
Australia

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

Fifty years ago, on this day, November 27th, 1974, AJ Dyer gave a presentation at the Australian Royal Meteorological Society – The Fear of Climatic Change

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian meteorologists and climatologists were doing their own data collecting and looking closely at what else was being done elsewhere. And by 1974, it was clear that something was going on. It might be a short-term perturbation, and then normality would return. It might be a long term-change caused by natural fluxes and things that people we weren’t yet aware of. Or it might be caused by man; dust, waste heat or carbon dioxide. Internationally, US Secretary of State Henry war criminal Kissinger made an address to the United Nations General Assembly about the possibility of famine and food shortages as weather extremes kicked in.

What we learn is that nobody was quite sure at this point, but it was certainly worth talking about.

What happened next? The Labor Science minister under Whitlam had been persuaded by Nugget Coombs to request the Australian Academy of Science to do a study and report into climatic change (the one that Barrie Pittock headed). 

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

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

Categories
Australia Denial

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

Twenty years ago, on this day, November 22nd, 2004 another terrible book is published, saying that carbon dioxide build-up is not a problem.

Most scientists say that global warming is not only real, but is already contributing to extreme droughts, floods and the melting of the  polar ice caps.  But a few scientists still insist the idea is bunk. With the Kyoto Protocol about to come into force, Melissa Fyfe investigates the doubters, their financial backers and whether they are worth listening to.

At 401 Collins Street on Monday night, 50 men gathered in a room of plush green carpet, pottery and antique lights to launch a book about the science of climate change. Some of them were scientists. But many were engineers and retired captains of industry. Presiding was Hugh Morgan, president of the Business Council of Australia and former Western Mining boss. The master of ceremonies was retired Labor politician Peter Walsh.

Climate change is about science, but not just about science. It’s about business and politics and wielding influence. The men – there was just one woman present – were all climate change sceptics, members of an organisation called the Lavoisier Group that argues global warming is nothing to worry about.

The book they launched – the latest weapon in the tussle for hearts and minds over global warming – was by Melbourne climate change sceptic William Kininmonth, former head of the National Climate Centre, part of the Bureau of Meteorology. He argues that global warming is natural and not caused by humans burning fossil fuels.

The book, Climate Change: A Natural Hazard, blasts the models used by climate scientists to predict and simulate what is happening. They are flawed, he says. “Climate change is naturally variable and it poses serious hazards for human kind,” he writes. Focusing on man-made global warming is “self-delusion on a grand scale”.

The only problem for the sceptics is that the vast majority of scientists think they are the ones that are deluded. “There’s a better scientific consensus on this than on any issue I know – except maybe Newton’s second law of dynamics”, Dr James Baker, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the US, has said.

Fyfe, M. 2004. The global warming sceptics. The Age, 27 November.ge Tool

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that although the denialists had their favoured Prime Minister who was making most of their favourite moves, there’s always time for another unreadable steaming pile of denialism.. In order to get yourself some headlines, go on a speaking tour, feel like you’re telling the truth to the ignorant savages and just generally pal around with your nut job friends. And so it came to pass.

What we learn is to paraphrase Taylor Swift “denialists gonna denialist.” It is, after all, the democracy, at least until the Atlas Network goons get their way.

What happened next. In 2007, the Lavoisier Group kicked into higher gear because everyone was concerned about climate change or was having to pretend that they were concerned about 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.

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

Categories
Australia

November 21, 1978 – Sydney Channel Ten news on Carbon Dioxide build-up and trouble ahead

Forty-six years ago, on this day, November 21st, 1978, people in Sydney got a news broadcast about Trouble Ahead…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the CSIRO had started to make serious noises about CO2. There’d been a documentary called A Change of Climate in 1976. There’d been, more importantly for these purposes, a conference being held on Phillip Island in Victoria. That was CSIRO Australian Academy of Science and someone else. And so it was a nice little hook for the journo, alongside some modelling work released. 

What we learned is that by 1978, the carbon dioxide issue was being explained to people in Sydney. Whether they were paying much attention or not, is another question. 

What happened next? CO2 kept appearing in the newspapers with perhaps a little bit more frequency. In 1980 the Canberra Times covered the conference hosted by the Australian Academy of Science. In 1983, the Australian covered the EPA’s report. But it wasn’t really till 1986/87/88 (especially ‘88) that the issue started getting serious traction. Meanwhile, 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 21, 1994 – Skeptic invited to engage with IPCC (Spoiler, he doesn’t)

November 21, 2013 – “Cut the Green Crap” said UK Prime Minister

Categories
Australia

November 19, 1998 – John Howard trolls Australia by appointing Mr Coal as Environment Ambassador

Twenty six years ago, on this day, November 19th, 1998, the Democrats were unhappy that coal baron Ralph Hillman is now environment ambassador.

CANBERRA, Nov 19, AAP – The Australian Democrats today damned the appointment of economist and trade expert Ralph Hillman as Australia’s new ambassador for the environment.

Democrats environment spokeswoman Lyn Alison said the announcement that Mr Hillman would replace Meg McDonald as ambassador this month was a cynical decision.

“Mr Hillman has no obvious qualifications to be an advocate for the environment, he is more likely to work against the interests of the environmental movement,” Senator Alison said in a statement.

“The key credential Mr Hillman brings to the position is his hard-headed economic rationalism and experience in foreign affairs. This makes him just the ticket for a government that doesn’t take the environment seriously.”

But the Australian Conservation Foundation said it would work with Mr Hillman.

“We believe it is a very important job,” ACF campaigns director Michael Krockenberger told AAP.

“It is especially so as Australia faces a lot of international pressure on the environment on issues like climate change and looking after world heritage areas threatened by issues such as uranium mining in Kakadu National Park and oil shale mining at the Great Barrier Reef,” he said.

Anon, 1998. FED – Democrats damn appointment of environment ambassador. Australian Associated Press, November 19

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 367ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard could afford to relax a bit, having won a famous victory at Kyoto, carving out a tremendously generous deal. And now he could display his sense of humour. The post of ambassador for the environment was created under Bob Hawke in 1989 {link]. And Howard was now appointing the head of the Australian Coal Association as the ambassador for the environment. Oh how he must have chuckled. 

What we learn is that John Howard had a sense of humour when he was “owning the libs.” Any post can be emptied of its meaning, when a new government comes along and can’t be bothered spending political capital abolishing it, just render it utterly meaningless by appointing someone who is clearly not going to do the job the way it was meant.

What happened next. And so it came to pass. 

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 19, 1943 – FIDO used for the first time

November 19, 1958 – doctor warns of long-term problem of carbon dioxide build-up

November 19, 1960 – Guy Callendar gives advice on unpopularity of C02 theory

November 19, 1990 – “The US should agree to stabilising CO2 levels”

November 19, 2007 – Gordon Brown announces first Carbon Capture and Storage competition at WWF event

Categories
Australia

November 17, 1994 – “When consumption is no longer sustainable”…

Thirty years ago, on this day, November 17th, 1994,

“The fly in the ointment is the increasing insistence of our scientists that it can’t go on much longer. Just the latest unwelcome reminder of this came last week at a seminar on “Consumption and the Environment”, organised by the Australian National University’s Centre for Continuing Education on behalf of the Department of Environment, Sport and Territories.”

Gittins, R. 1994. When more is no longer sustainable. Sydney Morning Herald, 23 November, p.21.

[ALMOST CERTAINLY 17 November, in Sydney….

http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/STS300/market/green/probarticle1.html

https://www.vgls.vic.gov.au/client/en_AU/vgls/search/detailnonmodal/ent:$002f$002fSD_ILS$002f0$002fSD_ILS:63151/ada?qu=Consumption+%28Economics%29&d=ent%3A%2F%2FSD_ILS%2F0%2FSD_ILS%3A63151%7EILS%7E2&ps=300&h=8

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by now we’ve had all of this nonsense about green consumerism and the “Green Consumer Guide” and all the rest of it. But populations are growing, wants and “needs” are growing. Advertising was continuing at a very great pace. And therefore, obviously comes the question of when does consumption en masse start to be unsustainable? And if you’ve heard of a guy called William Jevons, you will know that efficiency is not the be all and end all. And so it’s unsurprising, albeit depressing, that people were having these conversations all those years ago.

For the avoidance of doubt: the best consumption for most of us is less consumption. Obviously, when I say most of us, I mean most of us wealthy people in Europe. There are other places in the world where they desperately need to consume more, more health care, more protein, and more contraceptives, etc. That won’t happen. We are going to be the bacteria that eats everything in the petri dish. But that metaphor hides culpability. 

What we learn: We knew. We did not act. We are doomed.

What happened next? We kept hyper-consuming. 

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 17, 1968 – UK national newspaper flags carbon dioxide danger…

November 17, 1980 – International meeting about carbon dioxide build up.

November 17, 2018 – XR occupy five bridges in London

Categories
Australia

November 15, 2004 – Bob Carr on Lateline- “no other developed country will be as severely affected by global warming as Australia.”

Twenty years ago, on this day, November 15th, 2004, New South Wales Premier Bob Carr responded to a CSIRO report with some astute observations about what was coming… (back when the ABC still had a backbone and a Lateline).

Australian Broadcasting Corporation TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT

Broadcast: 15/11/2004

TONY JONES: And for anyone who tuned in a bit late, we should point out Mike Bailey’s potential weather outlook was for November 15 in the year 2030.

Well, to discuss the issues raised in that report we spoke to the NSW Premier, Bob Carr, earlier today.

Bob Carr, thanks for joining us.

Clive Hamilton from the Australian Institute said today that no other developed country will be as severely affected by global warming as Australia.

Do you agree with him?

BOB CARR, NSW PREMIER: I do. I think of all nations, Bangladesh, or some of the small island states would only be worse affected but we stand, for example, to have even more erratic rainfall.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of November 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Millennium Drought was ongoing. The Liberal government of John Howard Government was showing itself to be utterly hostile to any action on climate change. And in fact, was at this point, heavily boosting coal and natural gas exports and for domestic use. Bob Carr was still premier of New South Wales and had done what he could to get carbon offsetting and carbon trading going in his own state, and also to get the other states on board for a bottom up emissions trading scheme. 

What we learn is that these issues were being discussed and debated by top people, in the right places 20 years ago, or longer. 

What happened next? Bob Carr stopped being premier at about that time shortly after, and later became Julia Gillard’s Foreign Affairs Minister. The emissions kept climbing of course, as did the atmospheric concentrations. 

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 15, 1958 – Academic Paper on “Changes in Carbon Dioxide Content of Atmosphere and Sea Due to Fossil Fuel Combustion” submitted

November 15, 1983 – “Energy Futures and Carbon Dioxide” report…

Categories
Australia China United States of America

November 14, 2014 – US and China sign climate deal, in part to troll Australian Prime Minister

Ten years ago, on this day, November 14th, 2014,

The US and China governments make joint announcement on emission reductions: The two nations announce bilateral cooperation to adopt a binding protocol at the Paris COP meeting in 2015. US will aim cut emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025 and China pledged to peak emissions around 2030.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Tony Abbott as Australian Prime Minister and host of a G20 meeting in Brisbane had very publicly kept climate change off the agenda literally. So what Obama and Xi did – this is back when Xi wasn’t yet nuts – was making a bilateral deal as a way of pointing out to Abbott, who was the boss/ 

What we learn was that it’s fun to make fun of Tony Abbott.

What happened next, well it turned out that US/China deal was consequential in terms of getting things moving a bit for investors and governments and so forth. It took a hit when Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement. Biden has been mostly mending fences on this stuff, doing statecraft, which is what you’d expect of a president. But yeah, sometimes stuff that initially seems like a gimmick turns out to be really important. 

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 14, 1977 – Met Office boss forced to think about #climate change – first interdepartmental meeting…

November 14, 2013, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s 50th #climate speech

Categories
Australia

November 13, 1995 – no Aussie savings of greenhouse gases so far

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, November 13th, 1995,

Asked yesterday [13 November] for an update on Australia’s domestic performance, Dr Hamilton told the Herald that he still could not identify any savings. “I’d like to be able to,” he said.

Dr Hamilton said a major reason for the Government’s failure was that the advice from the bureaucracy was “very skewed” and came from sections that shared a world view with the coal, oil and gas industry.

Gilchrist, G. 1995. Greenhouse Gas Policy Has Failed. Sydney Morning Herald, 14 November, p.4. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been a battle over whether to have a carbon tax. The carbon tax had been defeated in February and the consolation prize, the booby prize, was the Greenhouse Challenge, entirely voluntary, self-reporting…  all that nonsense, no punishment for failing to hit targets. You know the drill. And this made it entirely obvious that the Toronto target for reducing emissions by 20% by 2005 was no longer even worth pretending about.

What we learned is that unless you can keep the pressure on the politicians, they will pretend they never made those promises. And then, when it’s no longer possible to meet those promises, they’ll say, “Well, we must be pragmatic.” You know the rest. “I’m not here to pick over yesterday’s failings. I’m not stuck in the past. I’m looking to the future.” They are taught this in “Being Corrupt Spineless Dickheads 101.” 

What happened next, the Greenhouse Challenge kept being used to soothe enough of the people who needed soothing. Not all of them by any means but enough. It was replaced by a Greenhouse Challenge Plus, which must be hard to keep a straight face to. And then, alongside this, emissions trading schemes were proposed and defeated. And 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 13, 1963 – Ritchie Calder warns of trouble ahead because of carbon dioxide…

November 13, 1975 – climate testimony to House of Reps committee

November 13, 2008 – Coal industry tries to get some ‘love’