Category: Denial

Categories
Denial United Kingdom

March 17, 2013 – Daily Mail idiot makes idiotic climate claims 

Nineteen years ago, on this day, March 17th, 2013,

In the four-page version published in the Mail on Sunday on 17 March, he calls climate science the “Great Green Con”. And, when David writes one of his exposés, Carbon Brief like to expose his errors. 

https://storage.googleapis.com/gpuk-archive/blog/climate/mail-fake-cover.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 400ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Daily Mail has been mostly but not entirely, hostile to the idea of carbon dioxide build up. There was this article from 1979 based on a book, World without Trees.

But on the whole, the Daily Mail mostly has derided hippies and anti-capitalists and grant grubbing-scientists. Every so often, they’ll run a story or an editorial to show that they’re somehow “balanced”, but they’re not really fooling anyone

The specific context was that their journalist, if you want to call him that, David Rose, was a reliable repeater of the latest denialist memes and talking points and bullshit to come out of the United States. (and, self-confessedly at the time of the Iraq war, security services disinformation). And so it came to pass here, in 2013 after the Copenhagen failure and ahead of David Cameron saying “cut the green crap.”

In 2013, Media Matters named Rose’s publication, the Daily Mail “2013 Climate Change Misinformer of the Year” for its stirring up of “faux controversies about climate science.” In 2014, Greenpeace made an official release noting that David Rose is “not a credible source.”12 13

David Rose – DeSmog

What I think we can learn from this is that there is a conveyor belt of ass-hollering, where denial, half truths and outright lies get washed into newspapers, and then some of it ends up in people’s heads. I am not proposing a hypodermic model;  it is more of an air mist than a hypodermic. 

What happened next The Mail has kept on being awful on climate, alongside the Express, the Sun, the Times and the Telegraph, as per Carbon Brief.

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 17, 1976 – UK Weather boss dismisses climate change as “grossly exaggerated”

March 17, 2006 – Rio Tinto says “CCS is key to cutting greenhouse gases.” Oops, then…

March 17, 2007 – Edinburgh #climate action gathering says ‘Now’ the time to act

 March 17, 2014 – Carbon Bus sets off to the North

Categories
Denial United Kingdom

March 8, 2007 – Great Global Warming Swindle 

Nineteen years ago, on this day, March 8th, 2007,

Great Global Warming Swindle broadcast on Channel 4

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

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

The broader context was that climate change had come alive as an issue in the summer of 2006 especially in the UK, thanks to various factors, including “Camp to Climate Action,” (which I was involved in), and Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth. Therefore the backlash would have to begin. 

The specific context was that the idiots who made the documentary had form. They had produced something in the late 90s called Against Nature that said, in effect, “Hitler was vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are at least Nazi-adjacent.” 

What I think we can learn from this is that mud and shit will be flung by opponents of action towards stopping us killing ourselves more quickly than we otherwise might. This is especially the case if “stopping our killing ourselves quickly” involves cutting into the profits of rich white people and the so-called liberties of rich white people. It’s not just the rich, of course, I’m being tabloid here. 

What happened next

 The Swindle enabled middle class people who didn’t want to take a stand and change anything to say “Oh, well, there’s still doubt. Scientists are still not sure.” Blah, blah, blah. 

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 8 – International Women’s Day – what is feminist archival practice? 

March 8, 1971 – The Future cancelled for lack of interest…

March 8, 1978 – Minister for Science speaks proudly of Australia’s carbon dioxide monitoring…

March 8, 1999 – Direct Air Capture of C02 mooted for the first time

Categories
Denial Science Scientists United States of America

March 6,1996 – Michael McCracken testimony about “skeptic” scientists

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 6th, 1996,

“On March 6, 1996, Michael MacCracken submitted prepared testimony to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives. One part of that testimony addressed recurring criticism by the skeptic scientists of IPCC findings that corroborate increased atmospheric warming and attribute that increase to human emissions of greenhouse gases”.

Gelbspan, R. (1998) Page 198

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was  with the coming of the climate issue in 1988, the denial campaigns had cranked into gear. Initially it was attacks on James Hansen, but by 1989 it had spread thanks to outfits like the George C Marshall Institute, which had been set up to shill for Star Wars, the Space Defence Initiative, and outfits like Western Coal Association and the “Information Clearinghouse on the Environment.” Things had really cranked into higher gear in 1994-95 because the  IPCC second assessment report was being produced, and the denialists needed to attack it and cast doubt on it as much as they could.

The specific context was that the Second Assessment report had come out in November of ‘95 and had included the fateful phrase that humans were already exerting a “discernible” influence on the climate. I think the wording had been suggested by Bert Bolin. 

Anyway, here’s one of the good guys, Mike McCracken trying to educate congresspeople about scepticism, science, climate, etc. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the denialist campaigns are partly about rich white men wanting to stay rich. They also provide a platform for superannuated scientists like Nirenberg and Seitz and Singer to feel that they are somehow still relevant when frankly they’re not – or certainly not relevant scientifically, but somehow manage to have an enormously pernicious influence for the future of our species. 

Though, to be fair, even without the denialist campaigns, we would have probably still fumbled the ball. We’ll never know. 

What happened next. The denialist campaigns kept going. Within a year or two, they’d found what they thought was “soft target” in their ongoing “Serengeti Strategy” – Michael Mann, and the caravan went on.

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 6, 1992 – #survival emissions versus outright denial 

March 6, 2002 – ABARE cheerleads Bush. Blecch

March 6, 2009 – first “Low Carbon Industrial Strategy” announced 

March 6, 2009 – the UK gets its first “low carbon industrial strategy”

Categories
anti-reflexivity Denial United States of America

February 24, 1994 – Ted Koppel versus the lies. No contest.

Thirty two years ago, on this day, February 24, 1994,

On February 24th, 1994, ABC’s Nightline aired a news segment titled, “Is Science for Sale?” Its host, Ted Koppel, explained the piece was prompted by a conversation with then Vice President Al Gore. The segment features many prominent climate change deniers including:

The comments in this segment reflect some of the most common arguments used by climate deniers attempting to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change such as:

  1. Current science is unable to tie increases in greenhouse gases to human activities;
  2. We should rely on present observations rather than inaccurate climate models which are unable to predict future climate scenarios effectively;
  3. Climate policies are unnecessary and would hurt the economy, endanger people, and harm our way of life.

On air, Koppel reported the financial ties of his guests, largely comprised of fossil fuel entities, including consulting fees to Fred Singer from Exxon, Shell, ARCO, Unocal and Sun Oil (14:50); funding to Patrick Michaels and Sherwood Idso from the coal interest group Western Fuels Association (12:20; 13:30) ; and support of Ron Arnold’s Wise Use Movement from corporations like Exxon (5:30). The segment also included a clip of Rush Limbaugh, referred to as the “archdeacon of conservatism” boasting, “I can produce as many scientists that say there is not global warming as they can produce that say there is.” He referred to Pat Michaels as “one that I rely on” (12:15).

The segment featured environmental advocates Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund and Vice President Al Gore, however, Jerry Mahlman, previous director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was the only scientist interviewed who challenged the opinions of deniers like Fred Singer, of whom Koppel also referred to as a “scientist.”

Despite the segment’s lack of scientists representing the global consensus on anthropogenic climate change, Koppel comments:

“This is not, you understand, a close call. It’s not as though US scientists are evenly divided or even close to being evenly divided on issues like the greenhouse effect or depletion of the ozone layer. But environmentalists are concerned about even the appearance of a scientific dispute.” (6:09)

1994 02 24 Nightline Ted Koppel – https://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/1994-nightline-special-science-for-sale/

UK-EN | D7960 | Curate for cash | Home | Seller | 16×9 | 15s | .mp4

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that from 1988,eighty-nine onwards, the denialists in the United States had been pushing back as hard as they could against climate science using superannuated physicists like Nirenberg and the George Marshall Institute to muddy the waters. They had done this with significant success.

The specific context was that Bill Clinton and Al Gore had had their asses handed to them over the proposed BTU (i.e.petrol) tax and Gore was therefore probably in a bad mood about all this, and so got talking to Ted Koppel, who was one of the sort of famous news anchors and they did a full on expose of the denialist tropes/

What I think we can learn from this is that politicians have been trying to educate the public and Gore, bless him, has within the constraints of his particular ideology, done more than most. But telling people that they’ve been lied to and showing how they’ve been lied to, turns out it doesn’t work that well, because you’re asking people to admit that they fell for lies, and nobody wants to admit that they fell for lies. 

What happened next: Lies kept coming. They were convenient to believe. The lying campaign stepped up a notch around 1997 as the Kyoto negotiations were underway, and alongside the lies came the emissions, came the increasing concentrations. And I’ve already said this about 10 times this month already, so I won’t repeat myself.

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

Also on this day: 

February 24, 1971 – aims of the Department of the Environment

February 24, 2003 – UK Energy White Paper kinda changes the game (a bit).

February 24, 2011 – the fateful press conference of Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the Greens Bob Brown…

Categories
Denial

February 20, 2010 – Chirstopher Booker being a tit, for once

Sixteen years ago, on this day, February 20, 2010,

In an article which appeared in The Sunday Telegraph on 20 February 2010, Christopher Booker purported to correct the misquotation contained in The Real Global Warming Disaster but this article contained yet further inaccuracies.[30] As a result, Houghton referred the matter to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC Reference 101959). Following the PCC’s involvement, The Sunday Telegraph published on 15 August 2010 a letter of correction by Houghton stating his true position.[31] An article supportive of Houghton also appeared in the edition of 21 May 2010 of New Scientist.[32]

The correct quotation was, “If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster. It’s like safety on public transport. The only way humans will act is if there’s been an accident.”[33]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the journalist Christopher Booker (a founder and first editor of Private Eye) had been writing various idiotic denialist screeds for a while. There was an audience for them among a certain kind of person who doesn’t want to admit that all the nice things that we have come with a price tag, and that people who are enjoying more of the nice things than other people are might have a responsibility to cut back and to help those other people, because that would be, well, that would be, in their eyes, an unfair infringement on their “liberty” and so forth and so forth. Also these people are enraged that it turns out that the dirty hippies who they’d been disparaging by this time for 40 years were right. 

So the way it works is that some awful book gets published, It doesn’t matter that it’s full of inaccuracies, that it has had no real peer review, it’s a book, and in the eyes of journalists, that makes it newsworthy.

And in the eyes of editors with pages to fill, well, they can get op eds and excerpts out of it, “all the adverts fit to print, all the news printed to fit,” and so on. 

And so what you see here is Booker just making shit up and being wrong and back and forth, back and forth, other people like scientist John Houghton having to waste precious time and energy, which Houghton had been having to do since, well, the early 1990s.

The specific context was that Copenhagen had ended in nothing, the “Climategate” bullshit was in full flow and the denialists had the winds at their backs.

What I think we can learn from this is that Christopher Booker may have been a talented journalist early on, but as an assessor of science and as a man of honour, he was a complete failure.

And those who took comfort in his lies, distortions, exaggerations are also frankly, failures. 

And of course, the Telegraph has continued to be a failure, as we see from its repeated apologies and quote clarifications in its ongoing, frankly psychotic campaign against net zero and Ed Miliband.

What happened next: The denial never stopped. It never will. These people painted themselves into a corner. To admit that they’d been wrong would destroy them emotionally, cognitively, so they won’t, but then they’ll pivot to, well, it’s too late to do anything about it, regardless of what the cause might be.

Booker died in 2019

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

Also on this day: 

February 20, 1966 – US Senators told about carbon build-up by physicist

February 20, 1970 – South Australian premier sets up an Environment Committee

February 20, 2017 “Clean Coal” money being spent on PR

Categories
Denial Science Scientists United States of America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See this from 2008

James Hansen and Mark Bowen on Censored Science : NPR

Also on this day: 

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

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

Categories
Australia Denial

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

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

To quote myself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also on this day: 

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

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

February 8, 1988 – BBC Horizon on The Greenhouse Effect

Categories
Australia Denial

February 3, 2010 – Tony Abbott and the lunatic fringe

Sixteen years ago, on this day, February 3 2010 newly-minted Opposition Leader Tony Abbott was being his true self.

Tony Abbott’s decision to meet Lord Monckton was contemptible — but smart politics. Abbott is just doing what he has been hired to do: dog-whistle to the extreme right of the party.

Tony Abbott met with conspiracy theorist Chris Monckton yesterday at lunchtime, but Abbott wouldn’t allow photographers to record the meeting or publicly comment on what was discussed.

Keane, B. 2010. Abbott to the lunatic fringe: it’s OK, I’m one of you. Crikey, 4 February.

Abbott to the lunatic fringe: it’s OK, I’m one of you

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that since 1990 the Liberal and National party had been terrible on climate change (they had gone to the March Federal election with a more ambitious carbon dioxide reduction target than the ALP, and felt betrayed by the greenies).

The specific context was that Abbott, a manifestly unfit and overpromoted idiot, had become Liberal Leader the previous November, toppling Malcolm Turnbull.

What I think we can learn from this is that Abbott and his goons were brilliant at opposition. Running anything? That’s a different skillset.

What happened next:  Oh, the soap opera. Abbott became Prime Minister in 2013. He was toppled two years later, by Turnbull, who was then in turn toppled by… I can’t type this.
Meanwhile, the coal exports continued, the impacts grew.  Australia is now on the frontline of the Fafocene.

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

Also on this day: 

February 3, 1994 – Greenhouse burden “unfair” on Australia

Feb 3, 2009 –  Physical encirclement of parliament easier than ideological or political. #auspol

February 3, 2015 – UK tries to puzzle out industrial decarbonisation

Categories
Australia Denial

January 24, 2002 – Ray Evans says global warming scam is “the most audacious”

Twenty four years ago, on this day, January 24th, 2002, a well-connected idiot spouts his usual shite.

Writing in the Canberra Times on January 24 (2002), [Ray] Evans stated: “Of all the political scams of the post-war period, the global warming scam … is the most audacious.” https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/wmcs-hypocrisy-greenhouse-emissions 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context is that you will always find people willing to deny impact science, who are willing to say that smoking is safe, asbestos is safe, etc, because, well, they’re being paid to and they regard “impact science” as somehow a betrayal of human ingenuity. Well, it’s absolutely not.

The specific context was that Ray Evans had been the heavy, the thug, for particular mining interest, led by Hugh Morgan, around a whole bunch of issues, Aboriginal land rights, work, worker safety, you name it.

Evans, in the mid-90s had been an important go-between with American denialists, such the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Australian climate denial lobby. That’s not to say there weren’t already relationships with various American denialists being invited down to give talks at the Tasman Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, et cetera.

By 2002 the third IPCC report had come out, the Kyoto negotiations were bogged down. But crucially, in Australia, there was a fierce battle about whether to ratify Kyoto or not. Prime Minister John Howard, a stupid but cunning climate denier, had not yet said he wouldn’t, and outfits like  the Business Council of Australia were suffering internal dissension over Kyoto ratification. The people who wanted Kyoto ratification wanted carbon trading, etc, etc, 

Those who didn’t, thought it was all a scam, and Evans was one of their champions. By this time as well the ludicrous Lavoisier group was a thing.

What I think we can learn from this is that there is always a henchman – and you can waste time thinking too much about them and too little about those they represent.

What happened next  Ray Evans faded and then died. Good riddance. Mad denial continues.

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: 

January 24, 1967 – Senior British scientist says “by no means can (C02) report be dismissed as science fiction”…

January 24, 1984 – Canadian TV documentary and discussion about #climate 

January 24, 2017 – Climate activist is court in the act

Categories
Denial United States of America

January 20, 2010 – RFK on the side of the angels. WTAF happened… ?  

Sixteen ago, on this day, January 20th, 2010, 

“It was an event billed as the smackdown between the baddest coal baron around and the environmental heir to the liberal Kennedy legacy, live on stage and in the heart of Appalachia mine country. Stage right, appropriately, was Don Blankenship, chairman of Massey Energy, a meaty impassive presence, his Kentucky drawl never picking up speed or volume. On the left, Robert F Kennedy Jr, who has spent his life defending waterways, making lawyerly argument out of staccato bursts of statistics.

The pairing at the University of Charleston was the perfect personification of America’s deep divides: Republican versus Democrat; old industry v new, global warming denier v impassioned advocate for climate change laws.”

Goldberg, S. 2010.  Kennedy takes on the coal baron in mountain duel. The Guardian, January 22.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that his dad RFK Snr was making the “right” noises about conservation and economics a couple of months before he got whacked in 1968.

The specific context was RFK wasn’t bonkers. Or he was, but hiding it better?

What we learn is that people can have some good ideas and then completely off the rails.

What happened next

Yeah, well, read a newspaper. He’s killing millions, helping diseases were were keeping in check stage a comeback.

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

January 20, 1992 – Gambling on climate… and losing #auspol

January 20, 2011 – Shell tries to change the subject from its own emissions   

January 20, 2014 – Gummer sledges “green extremists”