Categories
Cultural responses Interviews

“If I did a sequel it would probably involve a scientist swearing a great deal” – interview with cartoonist Jon Kudelka

The great Australian cartoonist Jon Kudelka kindly agreed to an interview.

1. Who are you and how did you come to be a cartoonist (where grew up etc).

I grew up in Hobart and after completing an undergraduate degree in molecular biology and chemistry in the early 90s realised that opportunities to do actual research were mostly in the area of weapons research or mining or forestry and decided that it wasn’t for me. I had supported myself through uni illustrating for various clients and decided to give that a go as if it failed I could probably get into teaching.

2. When and how did you first hear about climate change?

I heard about climate change in grade ten which would have been the mid eighties, so only 90 years after Arrhenius published his first paper on the topic, establishing my ability to be right on the ball with important news.

3. Your “scientist tapping the microphone ‘is this thing on'” cartoon from 2013 pops up intermittently in my feed and on sites – any recollection of how it came to be? If you were doing a sequel, what would the scientist be saying now?

The scientist one was done in a tearing hurry as I had taken in far too much work with various papers. I intended to have the sea level rising in each panel but somehow managed to forget it so was kicking myself the next day. If I did a sequel it would probably involve a scientist swearing a great deal.

Also I would probably go with a female scientist because the only people in my uni year who stuck with science turned out to be female. Probably should have done that with the first one but like I said, I was right on deadline and details weren’t a priority.

4. Your Rusted On Bingo is pure genius – what was the motiviation/straw that broke the camel’s back? Presumably you do encounter these responses from people in real life, where the block function is not possible. What do you do then?

I always got a lot more snark from Labor for the mildest criticism whereas the (slightly more) conservative parties were cranky in a more buffoonish manner. I think the trouble was that Labor types wanted to be Tories but didn’t want to be seen as Tories and didn’t react at all well to it. The prevailing attitude was to promise something centrist then roll over at the slightest pushback. I picked this rank cowardice during the run-up to Bill Shorten’s failed campaign against [then Prime Minister Scott] Morrison in 2019 where there were some good ideas that didn’t go far enough and the whole campaign was handed over to risk averse spin doctors. More effort seemed to be put into making excuses (mostly blaming the Greens for not passing Rudd’s CPRS in 2009) rather than actually following through with a consistent platform.

This is not to say that the Coalition weren’t people you’d touch with a barge pole (unless you were trying to push them off a boat) and a lot of the groundwork in ruining the country was done during the John Howard era. In fact I even published a book to that effect. It all got to the point where despite the succession of absolute clowns put forward by the Liberals starting with Tony Abbott, it became clear that Labor’s cowardice from opposition was clearly enabling the Coalition and the two party system was the entire problem. Pointing this out unleashed a deluge of spitefulness from the party faithful to the point where I just made a bingo card based entirely on their excuses for failure.

I was going to leave it at that but they just kept at it to the point where I rejigged the card into a teatowel and put the profits into sponsoring the endangered red handfish which I named “Rusty” which I quite enjoyed. I get a few requests to do another teatowel but have retired from cartooning due to a terminal brain tumour and don’t really have to time, inclination or funds to do another print run. Also the original seems to have held up pretty well.

These days people are generally too scared to make these comments to me in person but back in the day I would be increasingly polite to the point where they became quite cross. This may or may not have been deliberate. Anyway, I probably rambled on a bit there but I am somewhat bewildered as to why anyone would cling to any of the major parties these days but I haven’t really been paying attention since I retired late last year.

5. Who are your favourite cartoonists, living or dead?

My favourite political cartoonists are Bruce Petty, Ron Tandberg, Matt Golding, Andrew Weldon, Cathy Wilcox, First Dog On The Moon , Fiona Katauskas and Jess Harwood. My favourite non political cartoonist is probably Sempe.

6. Anything else you want to say – shout outs to activists, outlets, news of upcoming projects etc etc.

I’ve moved to being a more non-political artist because politics makes me a bit cranky these days as you’ve probably noticed. I recently attended the Takayna artist residency run by the Bob Brown Foundation and they do great work attempting to look after the place because they generally do what they say which would these days seems to be frowned upon by the media and the time-serving careerists who infest the major political parties.

Our only hope for getting the urgent changes needed to give the next generation half a chance after the long period of making the environment much worse in the case of the coalition or arguably slightly less worse under Labor is a minority government with sizeable crossbenches of people who are willing to actually work to make things better in both Houses of Parliament though it’s pretty much at the stage where if this occurred the Liberals and Labor will stop pretending they’re not defending their duopoly and band together to defend their donors.

See also this 2010 joint interview of Jon and First Dog.

Categories
Cultural responses United Kingdom

March 12, 2023 – the opera ain’t over, but the fat lady is warming up….

Two years ago, on this day, March 12th, 2023

The Greenhouse Effect

Barbican Centre (2023)

Starring:

Yshani Perinpanayagam,

Laura Moody,

Linda Jankowska,

Marcus Vergette,

Matthew Bourne

12 March 2023(2 performances)

The Greenhouse Effect review – bells, birdsong and a bubble-wrapped piano | Classical music | The Guardian

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 419ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was artists want to feel Relevant, while still being Artistic.

What I think we can learn from this. Artists, like almost everyone else, have been late and largely empty-handed to the party.  Human, all too human.

What happened next.  The opera ain’t over, but you can hear the fat lady in the wings, doing her warm ups.

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: 

March 12, 1974 – Clean Coal advert in the Wall Street Journal

Categories
Cultural responses United States of America

February 14, 1972 – the Lorax is animated…

Fifty three years ago, on this day, February 14th, 1972,

The book was adapted as an animated musical television special produced by DePatie-Freleng Enterprises, directed by Hawley Pratt and starring the voices of Eddie Albert and Bob Holt. It was first aired by CBS on February 14, 1972. A reference to pollution of Lake Erie was spoken by one of the Humming-Fish as they depart; it remains in DVD releases of the show, although later removed from the book. The special also shows the Onceler arguing with himself, and asking the Lorax whether shutting down his factory (thus putting hundreds of people out of work) is practical.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was running around talking about the environment. The Dr Seuss book The Lorax was part of that big picture. So. hardly surprising that an animation of it should be made.

What I think we can learn from this that old people, young people, everyone in between, people really did know in the late 60s -early 70s, what was at stake. And people who cared were unable to sustain public attention, because issues get old, and there was so much else going on; a war to protest, to try to end multiple wars for the state managers reconfiguring the American Empire. They had a lot on –  not that they ever intended to do anything about environmental degradation. 

So a few people thought that the dominant party could be persuaded. The “good chaps” theory of government, perhaps. 

What happened next Dr Seuss died in 1991. The Lorax got remade,

Categories
Australia Cultural responses

January 3, 1988 – The Sea and Summer, early Australian cli-fi, is reviewed.

Thirty six years ago, on this day, January 3rd, 1988 the Australian newspaper the Sun Herald, ran a review of The Sea and Summer by George Turner  under the heading “Melbourne is drowning” (possibly gleeful, given the Sydney-Melbourne rivalry).

The book itself? As Ruth Morgan explains

“Over a decade after his novel The Cupboard Under the Stairs won the Miles Franklin Award in 1963, Turner had turned to writing science fiction (Milner, ‘The Sea’ 112). The Sea and Summer, published as Drowning Towers (1988) in the United States, had earlier appeared as a short story, ‘The Fittest’ (1985), and reflected the growing popular awareness of the potential impacts of anthropogenic climate change in Australia. Turner envisioned a Melbourne drowned as a result of rising sea levels in the middle of the twenty-first century, its population cleaved into haves and havenots, the Sweet and the Swill.” (Morgan, 2014).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that “the Greenhouse Effect” was becoming newsworthy, thanks to a combination of the ozone hole (sensitising people to atmospheric pollution generally) and the post-Villach efforts of scientists, including at the Australian CSIRO.

What I think we can learn from this

When an issue is “hot” (i.e. salient) then journalists will figure out a hook, books that might otherwise not get reviewed, get reviewed.

What happened next

In the second half of 1988 climate change became a public policy issue, that politicians etc had to have opinions about, say warm words about etc.  

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Morgan, Ruth. ‘Imagining a Greenhouse Future: Scientific and Literary Depictions of Climate Change in 1980s Australia.’ Australian Humanities Review 57 (2014): 43-60.

Turner, G. 1987. The Sea, the Summer

Also on this day: 

January 3, 1984 – US report on energy transition to combat climate released.

Jan 3, 1992 – Greenpeace vs POTUS on Climate Change

January 3, 2007 – Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air, says Union of Concerned Scientists

Categories
Cultural responses United States of America

November 30, 2014 – US TV show The Newsroom tackles climate change

Ten years ago, on this day, November 30th, 2014,Aaron Sorkin’s drama show The Newsroom “does” climate change.

“The person has already been born who will die due to catastrophic failure of the planet.”

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 Sorkin has tried to get people thinking about climate change before. Check out “The American President” from 1995.

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

What I think we can learn from this

We ignored all the warnings, because to not do so would require collective action, and we really suck at that.

What happened next

Which then got chided by various “lefties” for, oh the usual – insufficiently hopey-changey blah blah blah

https://grist.org/living/aaron-sorkin-tackles-climate-change-on-the-newsroom-and-oy/  

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/11/climate-desk-fact-checks-aaron-sorkins-climate-science-newsroom/

The emissions kept climbing and the predictions came closer. Some of them have arrived. Others, well, they’re pending. 

References/further reading

Black, M. (2017). Environmental Deadpan: New Scales and Sensations of Ecological Fallout. American Quarterly 69(2), 397-409. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/aq.2017.0033.

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 30, 1978 – House of Lords debate on Atmospheric Changes…

November 30, 1998 – Exxon and Mobil merge

Categories
Academia Activism Cultural responses

HAARPing on about the weather: of conspiracies, climate, class and ‘what is to be done’

If you only  have time to read one article that will piss you off in a good way, but not two things, skip mine below and read this instead;

Bear, N. 2024. How Covid Broke Reality. Don’t Panic, October 11.

Still here?  Okay, thanks for the vote of confidence.

Now. Read this [link].  Ideally out loud. Ideally twice.  Then stop and think about what that would feel like.

Want some more? From some Brits who only moved to the States a couple of years ago? The BBC can oblige. Here you go

If you need a dose of vicarious misery pornography, and the Middle East doesn’t do it for you (wrong colour people, wrong languages etc) then Mother Nature and the 24hr news beast can provide. Endless photos, horror stories. Here comes the 21st century.

And of course, as you will also know if you’ve been following this even cursorily, there are just tons of “conspiracy theories” doing the rounds, and a lot (no, I mean a LOT) of articles, tweets about that. Which is what I am here to write about.  

The articles include these three, which are both worth your time 

The first two (I’ve added the Heglar upon finding it, on Oct 13) are very focussed – as journalists and pundits often are – on the recent past. Not so many of them make the obvious points (reasons of space, and focus and time and so on) that

  1. There is – how shall we put this? – a Paranoid Style In American Politics. Has been for a while.
  2. Since the 1950s the military was SERIOUSLY interested in weather as a weapon and this was a VERY public thing (front page of the New York Times). 

See here (Hudson, 2022. )

There is a good book by Jason Rodger Fleming (2012) on all this, called Fixing the Sky.  The cover art is from a 1950s magazine article, and you can see it in this All Our Yesterdays tile.

As late as the end of the Vietnam War, this shit was very very public (Operation Popeye, much?) (Hudson, 2024).

3. There have been stories about people controlling the weather for, well, since humans began telling the stories. Gods would do it and then their self-appointed ‘ambassadors’ on earth would (claim to do it).  It’s a standard sci-fi trope. The two examples below are among MANY. I chose them because 

a) They’re from the mid-1970s, when ALL sorts of anxieties were knocking about (the seeming end of prosperity, cheap oil, the American empire, the emergence of climate threats etc).

b) I have read them both and loved them, since watching Geostorm.  My article (Hudson, 2017) on that disaster film includes LOTS of examples of weather control films, and some excellent observations from a ‘sci-fi tragic’ friend I am seeing tomorrow, for the first time in far too long.

c) The covers are mint.

And these novels were inspired by things like HAARP – 

“High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program, a US government-funded program that studies the ionosphere” [Wikipedia].

Not to haarp on about it…

4. People can have a hard time separating stories they have heard a lot from “reality”  (like, you know, bearded sky gods who take a personal interest in whose and what type of genitals an individual is rubbing their own genitals against).  

Also, have we all forgotten Donald F – sorry, ‘J’ –  Trump and his sharpie?  The Dorian-Alabama thing in 2019, aka Sharpiegate.  Have we?

Philosophical interlude

What did we do in response to the pain we can’t imagine? And the ‘stupidity’ we are sure we are better than?  We – some of the best among us – reported and commented on what was happening without offering historical, political, psychological context. Blinded by our fear of what is already here, and what it presages.

@ElizKolbert ·Oct 9

Conspiracy theories about weather manipulation are, unfortunately, the logical next step in climate denialism, and the traction they are getting shows how hard it is to get out of this absurdly terrifying loop.

and

George Monbiot

@GeorgeMonbiot

I know we shouldn’t expect consistency from conspiracy fantasists, but seeing people claim that “human beings can’t possibly alter the climate” AND “human beings are causing hurricanes with cloud seeding/chemtrails/Jewish space lasers” suggests we really are doomed as a species.

I can hear the objections, that I am being unfair to these (good) thinkers and misunderstanding the limits of a limited social media platform. SO I say, calmly and quietly, the following.

YES I KNOW THESE ARE TWEETS BUT THERE ARE SUCH THINGS AS 

  1. Twitter threads
  2. Blogs and columns you write and then tweet about to your tens/hundreds of thousands of followers so they are not merely confirmed in their fear/disdain, but forced to think.

And the rest of us?  We do like to the mock the Jewish Space Laser people. (I understand that impulse, and give into it most of the time)

And we push the stupidity narrative.

And we framed the problem as (only) stupidity. And not our stupidity.

I will say this several times in the rest of this rant.  The stupidity narrative (especially on its own) doesn’t help. You could almost say it is… what’s the word…  stupid?

But it is both easy and also it makes us feel good.  And ultimately, what matters more than that?

Most of the people pushing these lines probably don’t like the Conservatives very much.  And if they’re old enough and British, they probably didn’t like John Major (UK Conservative Prime Minister from 1990 to 1997).

In February 1993, speaking to the entirely wonderful newspaper the Mail on Sunday, Major said – in the context of the murder of a 2-year old boy by two 10 year-olds –  “ ‘Society needs to condemn a little more and understand a little less,”

But we need to condemn a little less and understand a little more.

What’s the backstory?

The back story is not just “neoliberalism” (though that really hasn’t helped. It is not as if the “Keynesian” government of the Glorious 30 (1945-1973) were beloved (see Seabrook, 1978; Gross, 1980; Slater, 1972). Things weren’t great before (though in retrospect they look like, well, a Golden Age).  Nearly 40 years of ‘austerity’ and widening wealth gaps has happened. 

Enormous social changes (some for the ‘better’, some perhaps not). Enormous technological changes.  People feel hella disorientated, aggrieved etc.

And on neoliberalism? It is part of the response to the Crisis of Democracy. What’s that? Well, here’s a short Noam Chomsky video. 

Also check out Ignoreland by REM.

But humans are also fragile, cognitively.  It’s easy to plant false memories in them. [Wikipedia].  And we are so surrounded by stories, all day.  We are made of dreams and bones, sang Pete Seeger. And stories.

And the stories often involve, in the words of The Onion, “Smart, Qualified People Behind The Scenes Keeping America Safe”.  

It’s a comforting story, people believe it. And it is a very short sidestep to Smart, Qualified People acting nefariously in cahoots with the WEF, OECD, PTA, whoever.

At least somebody is in charge, at least somebody knows what is going on. “Phew, we do, ultimately, live in a rational society.”

Except, remember that Nate Bear article you didn’t go and read? Or you did and you’re about to get a repeat….

Bear talks about reading a well-meaning tweet from someone who laments ‘if only we’d been told about the brain-damage aspect of COVID in 2020, we’d have acted differently’ and observes it got a lot of likes and retweets. And Bear writes

I’m going to be honest about what this says to me.

It says that too few people who consider themselves informed, clever, rational, followers of science, have spent any time thinking about how bad things happen and why.

It suggests to me a certain amount of privilege in your circumstances and life experiences.

My brain kind of translates it as how did I, a white person in the global north, where I thought we had our shit together, end up living in such an irrational society?

Bear, N. 2024. 

What about the race, class, gender and general powerlessness (stripped out civil society). And the pandemic  if you haven’t spoken of it before and anyhoo, recap

So, here’s a new section I am going to put in all these sorts of rants, I mean, “considered and very publishable in respected outlets think pieces.” You can call it mechanical, abrupt, virtue-signally, whatever floats your boat. I will call it forcing myself to think about things I can – as a white, male, hetero, middle-class, able-bodied mofo – very easily pretend don’t actually matter (pro-tip, they do).

Incomplete list to consider (e.g. age, species)Well then.
RaceWhy might black people be suspicious of the medical system? Why might they have crazy crazy ideas about being neglected, or used as unconsenting guinea pigs, their diseases treatable but left untreated?  BECAUSE IT HAPPENED.  But that sort of thing has definitely stopped. For sure. Yes.
ClassJust go reread the quote about losing everything at the top. And also look at the people in that meme with the bandages on their ears. They are of a different class. They are part of a class that likes Trump’s tax cuts. And the permission Trump gives them to sneer at anyone Not Them.
GenderThink about all this in interplay.  And think about what it will be like for female meteorologists. Remember, when the death threats started flying at Australian climate scientists in the late 2000s, women copped more. And still are (as per Gergis, 2024). 
PowerlessnessIt’s all combined. The neoliberalism (destroying the democratic state), the algorithms and surveillance and carceral state. The sense of hopelessness that anything will get better, that the enormous challenges will be dealt with.  There ARE evil actors out there, meaning harm.  But it’s easier to punch on meteorologists than the people who wrote Project 2025, because those guys have the power to mess you up good and proper. So allow your fear, hate, despair, anger to be channelled towards punching ‘down’.
PandemicUnprocessed trauma. Trauma about how the whole thing has been memory-holed.  See also Terror Management Theory
Synergy/intersectionalityYeah. If you have to ask, you won’t ever understand.

Time for more Bear.  Read more Bear.

“Under conditions of depoliticisation, people either reach for conspiracies or mold their understanding of events into long-standing explanations of the world. This goes as much for centrists and even some leftists as it does for the right.

“Centrists famously lack the ability to see the world through prisms of imperial capitalist power, leftists see imperial capitalist power behind every crisis, and the right see manufactured threats to a loosely defined freedom as behind every crisis.”

Bear, 2024


What it implies/what is coming next(what hand-wringing opportunities for guilty impotent liberals [most of us] lie ahead?

At times like this, one needs to quote the famous Swedish political philosophers Ulvaeus, and Andersson.

In a 1980 work, they recount how 

I was at a party and this fella said to me

“Something bad is happening, I’m sure you do agree

People care for nothing, no respect for human rights

Evil times are coming, we are in for darker nights”

The anger and all the rest of it isn’t going away, whether Trump i) wins, ii) steals or iii) is somehow unable to steal and that nice Kamala Harris gets into the White House.  The goose, like the planet, is well and truly cooked.

More death threats and shit against the impact scientists (meteorologists, disaster preparedness etc etc – see the Walzer quote below).

What is to be done? (by social movement organisations. But won’t be)

Oh, the usual.

  • Create and maintain functional groups that support members, extend their skills, knowledge and relationships while avoiding co-optation, cognitive capture, repression and burnout.
  • Work with other similarly effective groups across a range of issues (all the issues), sharing resources and working to democratise the state (good luck with that) and using the state to control private concentrations of power.
  • Create and defend venues for individuals and networks to figure out what is actually going on.

Easy-peasy.

It’s the only way you’ll prevent climate meltdown, and as long as you start in the early 1970s and work consistently and persistently and don’t suffer too many setbacks, by about 2026 or so you’ll be home free.

What are the academic theories I find useful for thinking about this/Concepts for you to use (in rough order of importance or alphabetical order or no order whatsoever because there were other things I had to do and anyway i) ymmv and ii) about three people are reading these

Terror Management Theory [Wikipedia] – people scared of death. And they figure ways to ignore it, blame others

Anti-reflexivity – we’re fed up with how damn COMPLICATED the world has gotten. See this by McCright and Dunlap.

Jung’s Shadow stuff

Reflexive Modernisation (100 second video here)

Impact Science versus Production Science (Schnaiberg)

Agnotology. [Wikipedia]

What is the responsibility of intellectuals?

It’s a bit of a miracle that an article (okay, rant) about conspiracy theories hasn’t already referenced Lewis Carrol and  “Six impossible things before breakfast.”

Well, here’s three impossible things to do before breakfast. (Also, like accusations, every bit of advice is a confession).

  1. A little humility

Maybe (we) liberals could reflect on all the patently absurd shit we either believe or find convenient to pretend in pubic to believe?

About markets, democracy, progress, the capacity of their institutions to cope with climate change. 

A little fucking humility might be in order (1) 

Marilyn Robinson’s 1989 book Mother Country: Britain, the Welfare State and Nuclear Pollution was so incendiary that those loveable scamps at Greenpeace sued her for libel (and won). Among its many gems was one she wrote(and I can’t find the exact page number or quote, so this is a paraphrase – if you have a copy, please let me know) (2).

“Most people know a little about some things and nothing about everything else.  They have little islands of knowledge in vast seas of ignorance” 

And Robinson was writing thirty years ago, before the sea level rise – literal and of metaphorical ignorance was rising.

  1. A little empathy, compassion, hermeneutical phenomenology, whatever label you want to stick on it.

Who knows, maybe some compassion and imagining what the world would look like in someone else’s shoes? (3).

Update on October 13, 2024 – See this from Heglar (2024) on the question of compassion

So why are folks running to invent new conspiracy theories when the real, undeniable conspiracy is right there? Because for them to change their mind would be to lose a very real part of their identity and, perhaps, to have to consider the possibility that some of their other beliefs may not be real either. And that might mean they need to find new communities or even new families. Changing your mind about something as colossal as the ground you live on and the air you breathe is not unlike coming out of a cult.

But we don’t treat people that way. We treat them like doofuses who fell for an obvious lie. Ultimately, who does that serve? Perhaps it’s time we start treating these people as what they are: victims of a manipulative, deliberate lie. And then turn our attention back toward the people who lied to them.

TO BE CLEAR:  THIS IS DISTINCT FROM CONDONING OR TOLERATING DEATH THREATS.

  1. Earn your ‘keep’ as intellectuals and tackle the “Warzel challenge” Remember those two articles at the beginning of this post. Well, the second was by a guy called Warzel. “We need new ways of thinking.”

The whip-smart American journalism professor Jay Rosen (you should follow him) screengrabbed this bit below of Warzel’s essay. I’ve not got access to the full Warzel, but I trust Rosen to get to the crux.

Maybe stop fucking wallowing in the fucking smugosphere and riding the emotacycle off the cliff?  Eh?

References

Bear, N. 2024. How Covid Broke Reality. Don’t Panic, October 11.

Duffy, B., & Dacombe, R. (2023). Conspiracy Belief Among the UK Public and the Role of Alternative Media.

Fleming, J. 2012. Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control by Jason Fleming. New York: Columbia University Press.

Gergis, J. 2024. Exposing net zero’s climate delusions. The Saturday Paper, September 28.

Heglar, M. 2024. What Are Hurricane Conspiracy Theories and Why Are They Spreading. Teen Vogue, October 10

Hudson, M. 2017. Geostorm: the latest climate action blockbuster that you shouldn’t watch. The Conversation, October 30. 

Hudson, M. 2022. Hudson, 2022. 1958, Jan 1: Control the weather before the Commies do…All Our Yesterdays, January 1.

Hudson, M. 2024. March 18, 1971 – “Weather modification took a macro-pathological turn”. All Our Yesterdays, March 18.

Milman, O. 2024. ‘It’s mindblowing’: US meteorologists face death threats as hurricane conspiracies surge. The Guardian, October 11

[Milman is a decent journo. See this on methane emissions spiking, from June 2024.] 

Robinson, M. 1989. Mother Country: Britain, the Welfare State, and Nuclear Pollution.  Wikipedia entry here.

Warzel, C. 2024. I’m Running Out of Ways to Explain How Bad This Is. The Atlantic, October 10 ,[paywalled]

Footnotes

  1. And as anyone who knows the author can attest, if you’re getting humility advice from Marc Fucking Hudson, you are in far deeper shit than you actually understand
  1.  The closest a perfunctory google search (GoogleBooks not letting search of MC) was this 

“How is one to understand the degradation of the sea and earth and air of the British homeland by people who use the word British the way others of us use the words good, and just, and proud, and precious, and lovely, and clement, and humane? No matter that these associations reflect and reinforce the complacency that allows the spoliation to go unchecked; still, surely they bespeak self-love, which should be some small corrective. I think ignorance must be a great part of the explanation–though ignorance so obdurate could be preserved only through an act of will.” From Granta.

  1.  This had me making some jibe about MTG (the g stands for gourd – as in Empty Gourd. Geddit?” It’s not funny (but I thought it was at the time) and it is EXACTLY the sort of shit that is going to piss people off for no benefit.  I have ZERO problem pissing people off if there is a potential benefit (to them and me both, ideally). But for the yucks? Really? Isn’t that just using other people’s misery and confusion to make us feel more powerful and superior in the moment? Isn’t that morally and politically bankrupt?  Oughtn’t I to grow the fuck up?

See also what else I’ve written

Oh, there is the old “Conspiracy -Apocalypse- Paranoia” booklet I should dig out and scan because it is bound to be startlingly brilliant, oh yes.


See also what other people have written

When the Conversation article goes live, I will post it here.

Jeremy Seabrook “What Went Wrong?”

Bertram Gross Friendly Fascism

Philip Slater The Pursuit of Loneliness 

Stuff I haven’t read but looks good

Rothschild, M. 2022. The Storm Is Upon Us How QAnon Became a Movement, Cult, and Conspiracy Theory of Everything

Rothschild, M. 2023. Jewish Space Lasers: The Rothschilds and 200 Years of Conspiracy Theories

Uscinski, J. E., Douglas, K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2017). Climate change conspiracy theories. Climate Science, 1-35. Free here.

Biddlestone, M., Azevedo, F., & van der Linden, S. (2022). Climate of conspiracy: A meta-analysis of the consequences of belief in conspiracy theories about climate change. Current Opinion in Psychology, 46, 101390

Tam, K. P., & Chan, H. W. (2023). Conspiracy theories and climate change: A systematic review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 102129.

There’s more via googlescholar – here’s my keyword search, make your own!

Categories
Cultural responses

September 26, 1969 – Death on All Fronts, says Allen Ginsberg

On this day, September 26, 1969…the American poet Allen Ginsberg Death on all fronts

Death on all fronts (English)

“The Planet is Finished”

A new moon looks down on our sick sweet planet

Orion’s chased the Immovable Bear halfway across the sky

from winter to winter. I wake, earlier in bed,

  fly corpses

cover gas lit sheets, my head aches,

  left temple

brain fibre throbbing for Death I created

  on all Fronts.

Poisoned rats in the Chickenhouse and myriad lice

Sprayed with white arsenics filtering to the brook,

  City

       Cockroaches

stomped on Country kitchen floors.

  No babies for me.

Cut earth boy & girl hordes

  by half & breathe free

say Revolutionary expert Computers:

Half the blue globe’s germ population’s

  more than enough

keep the cloudy lung from stinking pneumonia.

I called in the Exterminator Who soaked the Wall

  floor with bed-bug death-oil.

Who’ll soak my brain with death-oil?

I wake before dawn dreading my wooden

  possessions,

my gnostic books, my loud mouth, old loves silent,

  charms

turned to image money, my body sexless fat,

  Father dying,

Earth Cities poisoned at war,

  my art hopeless —

Mind fragmented–and still abstract–Pain in

left temple living death —

Sept. 26, 1969

https://www.babelmatrix.org/works/en/Ginsberg,_Allen-1926/Death_on_all_fronts

Also on this day: 

September 26, 1989 – Australian Union body tries to add green to red…

September 26, 1998 – Howard decision only to ratify Kyoto if US does leaks.

Categories
Cultural responses United States of America

September 24, 1993 – A museum exhibition travels to Pittsburgh

Thirty-one years ago, on this day, September 24th, 1993 Pittsburgh hosts a touring museum exhibition about climate change and what needs to be done (spoiler: we didn’t do it).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that when global warming became a thing in 1988/89 cultural institutions like museums started thinking, “well, what can we do? How do we respond?” These things take time to put together, schedules booked. So it was 1991/92 by the time a lot of these big displays were in place. And then of course, they have to tour to different parts of their country. And so hello, it’s late 1993 by the time he gets to Pittsburgh, by which time Rio is over a year old and Clinton has lost his BTU tax. So it all probably felt a little bit yesterday’s news.

What we learn There’s a time lag.

What happened next We shrugged our shoulders and the emissions kept climbing.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Revkin, A. 1994. Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast

Also on this day: 

 September 24, 1989 – Petra Kelly disses the Australian Prime Minister

September 24, 1991 – Australian denialist gives “Greenhouse Myths” seminar.

September 24, 2006 – “Plane Stupid” holds first action, with “Sermon on the Taxiway” at East Midlands Airport

Categories
Cultural responses

September 11, 1989 – Bill McKibben’s “The End of Nature” published

Thirty-five years ago, on this day, September 11th, 1989, The New Yorker Magazine publishes ‘The End of Nature’ , an essay by William McKibben.

In an interview with the same magazine in 2014 McKibben recognised he had initially miscalculated what we are up against.

“It took me a long time to realize that the scientists had won the argument but were going to lose the fight, because it isn’t about data and science, it’s about power. The most powerful industry is fossil fuel, because it is the richest. At a certain point, it became clear that our only hope of matching that money was with the currencies of movement: passion, spirit, creativity—and warm bodies”

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/peoples-climate-march-interview-bill-mckibben

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that for the past 13 months, everyone had been banging on about the “greenhouse effect” since James Hansen’s testimony. This had been neatly secured by Grant Swinger. And here was the first one of the first big philosophical pieces written by then young Bill McKibben. Talking about the End of Nature/

The New Yorker, of course, had been the venue for Rachel Carson’s 1962 effort Silent Spring. So this was in keeping with their general long form, big picture jeremiads (see also Elizabeth Kolbert’s Field Notes from a Catastrophe). 

What we learn is that there are specific publications where if you really want to have an influence, that’s where you need to be. Because everyone will be reading it and the mere fact that it got published there will mean that people take it seriously. Even if more interesting, important work is appearing somewhere else. Because we do mental shortcuts – we have to, because we’re surrounded by so many potential sources of information. 

What happened next McKibben’s essay got published as a book. Good Book. McKibben went on to found 350.org involved in divestment and so forth. Probably still thinks that the situation is salvageable. I don’t know. Maybe I should interview him. Anyway, that’s 35 years ago. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/peoples-climate-march-interview-bill-mckibben

Also on this day: 

September 11, 1961 – New York Times reports “Air Found Gaining in Carbon Dioxide”

September 11, 1973 – CIA coup topples Chilean democracy

Categories
Cultural responses France

September 9, 1990 – classic (?) film Mindwalk released

Thirty four years ago, on this day, September 9th, 1990, an interesting film was released. It sounds like a joke set-up: a poet, a politician and a physicist walk around a monastery…

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

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Fritjof Capra was a bit of a star in New Age circles because he had a physics background and then to chuck it all in to be at the feet of Gregory Bateson and others. He had written The Turning Point, and so forth. And this film, directed by his brother is a rather interesting artefact. And it was an attempt to put these ideas to the test. I like the film. It has three significant speaking parts. There’s a poet, played by John Hurd, who’d already put on weight from the previous year’s The Package, Liv Ullman, as a Swedish nuclear physicist and Sam Waterson as a very thinly veiled Al Gore. These three meet at Mont St Michel and walk and talk. 

What we learn is that it can be hard to translate relatively abstruse ideas into something that people will watch. But this is an entirely serviceable effort in my opinion, and you should get hold of it if you can. 

What happened next Hurd went on to have a career that he thought was okay, but wasn’t as big as it could have been. Waterson has been around forever. Liv Ullman, I think is still alive. And Bent Capra never made another film; probably didn’t want to.

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: 

September 9, 1947 – The Daily Worker talks about melting the ice-caps

September 9, 1971 – of Australian Prime Ministers and American scientists…