Category: Denial

Categories
Denial United States of America

November 11, 1988 – Gore blames Reagan and Reaganites for loss of US leadership

Thirty-four years ago, on this day, November 11th, 1988,

At that [Nov 11, 1988] conference [organised by Time] French environmental official Brice Lalonde remarked, “Through the late 1970s, lots of things we learned about the environment came from the United States. And [in the] late seventies, it stops, and the lead [switched to] Scandinavia, Germany, and the Netherlands.” To this, Tennessee Democrat Senator Albert Gore quickly responded “January of 1981, to be precise.”

(Schneider, 1989: 225)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Time magazine was holding a conference about the environment and climate change and so forth. Because that sold newspapers and they wanted to get another story out of it. 

So convene a big bunch of big names. You can put it on your cover, get reflected/halo glory, future connections. It’s then easier for journalists to phone up and get quotes. Bish bosh.

And what Gore was doing was telling the truth about how the Reagan administration had been, at best indifferent, at worst, actively hostile to all environmental concerns.There had been in effect, a lost decade, longer by the time you took the incoming President Bush into account.

What we learn is that there was a lost decade,

What happened next, Gore went toe-to-toe with Bush Snr over the subject of global warming. revealing that NASA scientist James Hansen had been gagged, etc, etc. Gore was then Clinton’s running mate in 1992, at the same time “Earth in the Balance” came out. 

And here we are, with the emissions still 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 11, 1963 – “Is man upsetting the weather?”

November 11, 1988 – IPCC finishes its first meeting

Categories
Australia Denial Economics of mitigation

October 31, 2006 – Stern Review “pure speculation” according to John Howard

Seventeen years ago, on this day, October 31st, 2006, Australian Prime Minister John Howard dismisses the report on “The Economics of Climate Change” by former World Bank economist Nicholas Stern as “pure speculation”


,

Fraser, A. 2006. Greenhouse Report Pure Speculation, Says Howard. Canberra Times 1 November

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia had just finally really woken up to climate change in September 2006. John Howard was beset on all sides and trying to fight back. At this point, he was probably still grumpy and resisting the idea of having to set up the Shergold Group Report. And so he took aim at the recently published Stern Review and called it pure speculation. 

What we learn is that a) people who are supposed to be responsible stewards of the future can be utter fools and that b) the species doesn’t know how to do concern about its own future. If it did, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Nothing in our cultural evolution in the West, at least the last 300 or 500 years or so has prepared us. And here we are. 

What happened next? Although Howard tried to do a pivot to save his skin it didn’t really convince anyone, probably not even himself. He got trolled by a senior ABC journalist on February 7. And he continued to sneer at Stern when Stern paid a flying visit in the first half of 2007. And of course, eventually, after leaving office, John Howard gave a talk to the Global Warming Policy Foundation or whatever it’s called that “one religion was enough.” 

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: 

October 31, 1994 – Four Corners reports on Greenhouse Mafia activity

October 31, 2018 – Extinction Rebellion makes its declaration of rebellion

Categories
Denial United Kingdom

October 27, 1990 – denialist letter published (demolished days later)

Thirty four years ago, on this day October 27th 1990, a stupid denialist’s letter is published, forcing the Met Office boss John Houghton to respond

Sir: You published a letter (27 October) from Mr Hilary Lawson in which he casts doubts on the integrity of scientists involved in the assessment of global climate change. Mr Lawson has made allegations of this kind before, in particular in his Equinox programme ”The Great Greenhouse Conspiracy” broadcast on Channel 4. But, as Vicky Hutchings points out in an article in the New Statesman and Society (26 September) in which she exposes the inaccuracies of the Equinox programme, Mr Lawson provides no evidence for his allegations.

As chairman of the Scientific Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), I can assure Mr Lawson the assessment was not ”dominated by those who were already in the pro-global warming camp” but by scientists chosen solely for their expertise; most of them (myself included) would refuse to be described as belonging to any particular camp.

About half the 400 scientists (from more than 30 countries) who worked on the scientific assessment assisted in the preparation of the draft documents, the other half reviewed them. Therefore virtually every scientist in the world who has made significant contributions to the science of global climate change had a part in the generation of the assessment and a wide range of other scientists were involved in its approval. Despite the many discussions and hard arguments which took place, none of the 100 or so present at the final meeting dissented from the final text.

The IPCC assessment concludes first that ”we are certain that increased emissions of greenhouse gases will result in additional warming of the earth’s surface”. It estimates, on the assumption that greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow on a ”business as usual” scenario, that global temperature will rise by about 0.3C per decade during the next century with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5C. Even if the lower figure is taken, the rate of change is likely to be greater than that which has occured on Earth at any time since the end of the last ice age more than 10,000 years ago.

These estimates of future climate change are mainly based on the results of the numerical models which integrate our knowledge of the dynamics and physics of the whole climate system. Mr Lawson alleges that the models are unable to reproduce accurately the current climate, let alone predict the future.

In Mr Lawson’s Equinox programme, in order to make this point, he misleadingly showed some very poor results of a Meteorological Office climate model produced some years ago when climate modelling was in its infancy. Global modelling has developed a great deal since then and models are now able to describe current climate with a large amount of skill. They have also been applied with some success to reproducing the climates which occurred during the last ice age. Although a lot of further development is required, we are confident that useful projections of future change can be provided.

Yours faithfully,

JOHN T. HOUGHTON

Chief Executive

Meteorological Office

Bracknell, Berkshire

30 October

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that some ridiculous idiotic documentary had been made, saying that it was all a conspiracy. These sorts of things are inevitable because a lot of people love their conspiracies and are frankly dickheads. This was also in the context of the first IPCC report coming out.

What we learn is that dickheads gonna dickhead. And that people like John Houghton at the Met Office are going to have to spend time unpicking this, and the problem is a classic Gish Gallop – by the time you’ve explained why it’s all bullshit, people have lost interest. Gish gallop as a technique keeps getting used because it’s so effective. It’s up there with “technology will save us.” Ah, all the different ways people enjoy being lied to….

 What happened next, Houghton had first been talking about climate in like 1966, I think at a British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting. Anyway, Houghton had a stellar career.

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: 

October 27, 1967 – “the Swedish environmental turn” picks up speed

October 27, 1990 – The Economist admits nobody is gonna seriously cut C02 emissions

Categories
Denial Scientists

October 22, 1991 – Denialist says “no more than 1 degree of warming by end of 21st century”. Turd.

Thirty three years ago, on this day, October 22nd 1991, the Cold Warrior physicist William Nierenberg, in the grip of Relevance Deprivation Syndrome and loving being part of the “George Marshall Institute” which he had co-founded, tells attendees of the World Petroleum Congress in Buenos Aires, Argentina that there will be 

 no more than 1 degree of warming by the end of 21st century.

See Oreskes and Conway Merchants of Doubt page 189 (they say 1992, but I am fairly sure they’re wrong). See also Bolin 2007, page 72.

[from a chapter of Merchants of Doubt available here].

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the climate denialists were in full throat, trying to dampen enthusiasm for a climate treaty. The negotiations for this were going nowhere, but you never knew. So one way to seem “reasonable” was to say that if there was going to be any warming, it would be very, very mild. Nirenberg had been a lead author on the 1983 report by the National Academies of Science which had come out two days after the Environmental Protection Agency’s report, “Can We Delay a Greenhouse Warming?” The EPA report stands up. Nirenberg et al’s? It has aged like a glass of milk. 

Nirenberg was a tool and his prediction of “no more than one degree Celsius of warming by the end of the 21st century” is laughable and contemptible. And as a silly old man, he should have shown a bit of humility.

What I think we can learn from this is that there is such a thing as Relevance Deprivation Syndrome and that those of high status suffer the most from it.

What happened next I think Nirenberg kept being a denialist asshole till he died. Because God forbid that you admit that you were wrong. 

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 also

WORLD PETROLEUM CONGRESS 1991
Source: Energy Exploration & Exploitation , 1991, Vol. 9, No. 6 (1991), pp. 344-353 Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43753814

Also on this day: 

October 22, 1969 – Edmund Muskie mentions CO2 build up 

October 22, 1997 – US and Australian enemies of #climate action plot and gloat

Categories
Denial

August 2, 1992 – Canberra Times reporting that Jastrow idiot #RelevanceDeprivationSyndrome

Thirty two years ago, on this day, August 2nd, 1992, the newspaper for Australia’s political capital reports a very stupid physicist who couldn’t cope with having backed the wrong horse and being old and now irrelevant (scientifically, if, not – sadly – politically).

“Global warming caused by sun” Canberra Times 2 August, p.5, reporting Jastrow

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that although the denialists had one relatively famous victory at Rio, it wasn’t enough. It was never enough, because they wanted to drive a stake through what they perceive to be the vampire’s heart. And, of course, they quite liked travelling around the world, feeling important because they were addressing various audiences and getting polite applause. These are old white men suffering from Relevant Deprivation Syndrome. Their days as high powered physicists were well behind them. They had fought the Cold War, they had defended Reagan’s Space Defence Initiative, (aka Star Wars), and now they had found a new grift, saying that the greenhouse effect wasn’t real.

What we learn is that Relevance Deprivation Syndrome is a tragic chronic illness, with fatal consequences for everyone else. Robert Jastrow, in the late 70s, after all, had been saying there would be a new ice age. It’s fine to be wrong. It’s not so fine to compensate by being a total prick. 

What happened next, the Canberra Times kept publishing denialist screeds because journalistic “balance” as per Boykoff and Boykoff (2004). Funny how they didn’t balance pro-capitalist views with anti-capitalist and communist views, for example.

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: 

August 2, 1970 – LA Times runs #climate change front page story

August 2, 1994 – Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating says greenies should ignore “amorphous issue of greenhouse”

August 2, 2007 – Russia plants a flag on the Arctic sea-bed.

Categories
Denial United States of America

July 15, 1991 – RIP Roger Revelle

Thirty three years ago, on this day, July 15th, 1991, the famed US scientist Roger Revelle died. Just before he died there was an article published (he’d been arm-twisted etc by that turd Fred Singer, whom he’d known for decades) which said climate change was nothing to worry about. This article was used as a denialist talking point for decades, as part of the confusion campaigns funded by Big Oil etc.

Brendan Montague of The Ecologist tells the story well–

Revelle helped to establish that carbon levels in the atmosphere were steadily rising and also taught science to a young Al Gore in the 1960s. As Revelle wrote in 1992: “There is a good but by no means certain chance that the world’s average climate will become significantly warmer during the next century.”

Singer approached him off the back of this statement, asking if the two men could collaborate on an article for The Washington Post.

Conned at death

That night Revelle suffered a heart attack and was rushed from the airport to a local hospital for a triple-bypass, and was not discharged until May that year.

Singer nevertheless continued to press the scientist to work on a journal article. “Whenever Singer sent him a draft, Revelle buried it under piles of paper on his desk. When Singer called, [Revelle’s secretary] would dig up the draft and put it on the top, and Revelle would bury it again,”  records American historian of Science at the University of Harvard professor, Naomi Oreskes, in her account of the episode.

“Some people don’t think Fred Singer is a very good scientist,” Revelle told his secretary.

Later that year Singer published his article, with Revelle named as second author, in the journal Cosmos. It stated boldly: “The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.”

The words were copied and pasted from an earlier article published by Singer – and directly contradicted Revelle’s own publicly stated views.

Revelle died of a heart attack the following July. Family members, friends and students all claimed that Singer had pressured or tricked the dying scientist into signing off a journal article which presented an argument opposed to his own.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Revelle was old, had been sick for some years. He was a giant of all sorts of science. The one is probably most remembered for the climate stuff, but there was a lot of formidable oceanography work going on for decades.

Why this matters is that Fred Singer latched on to Revelle and got him to “co author” a piece that said CO2 wasn’t really a problem. He then used it as part of the denial war.

George Will wrote stupid column (I know, hold the front page). Revelle’s daughter pushed back. Then when Al Gore tried to set the record straight, some anchordroid – I want to say Tom Brokaw – tried to say that it was all part of the culture war. 

What we learn is that slinging mud works. 

What happened next? The grad student who had to bend recanted that. Singer is dead at last, thank goodness, but my goodness, the damage he did.

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: 

July 15, 1968 – first(?) UK government attention to the possibility of climate

July 15, 1977 – “Heavy Use of Coal May Bring Adverse Shift in Climate”

July 15, 2005 – The “Stern Review” into #climate is announced…

Categories
anti-reflexivity Denial United Kingdom

July 9, 2004 – David Bellamy jumps the shark on climate change.

Twenty years ago, on this day, July 9th, 2004, popular conservationist David Bellamy made a complete fool of himself.

David Bellamy – Whatever the experts say about the howling gales, thunder and lightning we’ve had over the past two days, of one thing we can be certain. Someone, somewhere – and there is every chance it will be a politician or an environmentalist – will blame the weather on global warming. (Daily Mail, 9 July 2004) 

Gavin et al.: Climate change, flooding and the media in Britain Public Understand. Sci. 20(3) (2011) 422–438

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that David Bellamy was suffering a certain amount of Relevance Deprivation Syndrome. His star had waned since the 1980s. And along with a lot of other curmudgeonly old white men, he couldn’t bring himself to see that because fossil fuels have given us such power they’re also deadly. One of the ironies is that Bellamy pops up in a 1984 documentary called “What to do about CO2?”, directed by Russell Porter. And a mere 90 seconds into that, he gives a concise and compelling summary of… the greenhouse effect.

What we learn is that just because someone’s on television, banging on about nature doesn’t actually mean they’re capable of seeing the really Big Picture. They, like everyone else, have their blind spots, because they’re human. 

What happened next? Shortly after (in April 2005) Bellamy made a tragic miscalculation about ice glacier melt. George Monbiot, eviscerated him and basically ended his career, something he was bitter about, till he died. 

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: 

July 9, 1962 – rainbow bomb parties as hydrogen bomb explodes

July 9, 1965 – “Spaceship Earth” is launched, trying to get us to see our fragility (didn’t work)

July 9, 1987 – “Unpleasant surprises in the greenhouse” warns Broecker

 July 9, 2008 – President Bush operating at his peak intellectual capacity

Categories
Denial

June 26, 1975 – Denialist Richard Scorer being stupid

Forty nine years ago, on this day, June 26th, 1975, an overconfident man was being over-confident. And fundamentally, dangerously, wrong.

Scorer, R. 1975 The danger of environmental jitters. New Scientist, June 26 p702- 703

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 331ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that environmental concerns were still bubbling along. The greenhouse issue was still bubbling along. None of it with the prominence in the public mind that it had a couple of years before. But still enough for sceptics, like Richard Scorer to do a standard “denounce the greenies for being hysterical, emotional, unscientific, irrational.” fear, this stuff writes itself.  Scorer wasn’t alone in this of course – there was also John Maddox, John Mason et al.

What we learn is that the culture war must be fought, just pull the trigger to feel powerful, lay down some so-called suppressing fire at your enemies. Label them hysterical, ignore the arguments. Bish bosh. 

What happened next – as late as 1987 Scorer was peddling the same tosh.

Scorer’s 1987 greenhouse denial in the Guardian letters page.

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: 

June 26, 1986 – “our children will grow old in a world that fragmenting and disintegrating.”

June 26, 1988 – it’s SHOWTIME for climate…

June 26, 1991 “environment is not flavor of the month any more”

Categories
Business Responses Denial United States of America

March 15, 2002 – GM bails from Global Climate Coalition

Twenty-two years ago, on this day, March 15th, 2002, a major automaker decided to leave the denialist/predatory delay outfit the Global Climate Coalition.

DETROIT — Environmentalists are claiming victory following General Motors Corp.’s decision to quit a lobbying group that has led the opposition to a 1997 global warming treaty reached in Kyoto, Japan.

Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler Corp. withdrew earlier.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article/usa-general-motors-quits-global-warming-lobby-group

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 374.3ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that almost everything the Global Climate Coalition had fought for, had been won – a weakened initial treaty followed by the avoidance of any domestic carbon tax followed by the avoidance of the US being involved in Kyoto (beforehand by the Byrd-Hagel resolution, and then afterwards in March 2001, by George Dubya Bush‘s announcement of pulling out of Kyoto in contradiction of his election promise to regulate CO2.) 

What we learn from this is that culture wars can get out of hand. The Global Climate Coalition had done some things that were reputationally risky and dubious. And you often see corporations which have to worry a lot about their reputation with customers getting nervous when the gloves come off, and lobbying becomes a vicious public bloodsport. It is not because they are in any way “woke” – it’s just that they worry that they won’t be able to flog their product as easily if they are regarded as assholes by customers. 

What happened next is very shortly after this, thanks to other outfits leaving, I think Ford, and so forth, the Global Climate Coalition basically dissolved itself, declaring “mission accomplished.” 

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 15, 1956 – scientist explains climate change to US senators

March 15, 2019 – New Zealand school strike launched, called off.

Categories
Australia Denial

March 7, 2012 – George Christensen and his culture war hijinks.

Twelve years ago, on this day, March 7th, 2012, a Queensland politician showed exactly who he was.

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation to counter what he calls ‘the radical Green movement’, he immediately reached out to Gina Rinehart. Christensen sent her an email setting out his proposals to attack environmental groups that he claims want to hold up mining projects in the region. The exchange has now leaked.

Christensen wrote: ‘One quick thought was to hold a major rally “In Defence of the North Queensland Way of Life” in Mackay where we would encourage people in farming, fishing and mining to descend on the town for a mass show of support against the southern Green interests. If this was to be successful, we could then quickly move this movement into a formal blue collar/workers organisation that advocated for the North and against the greenies.”

There was a need to act quickly, he said, but the plan could only succeed if Rinehart and others like her got behind it. Not surprisingly, the email, dated March 7 [2012], specifically mentioned financial support.

Oakes, L. 2012. Gina and Clive are Labor’s best assets. The Australian, 26 May.

Oakes, 2013: 193

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394.6ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia now had an emissions trading scheme. The nutjob army that had been riled by defeat was looking for a compensatory consolation victory. You’ve got to keep people busy. You’ve got to keep your name in the paper. So Senator George Christiansen (three words that really don’t belong together in the English language) was taking money from a mining magnate to keep the culture war going. Happy days. 

What I think we can learn from this Is that culture wars need their lieutenants, need their logistics. And you can see it unfolding because it’s happening in a democracy. You can also see it in a dictatorship, I guess, but slightly more difficult. I digress. 

What happened next

Christensen’s “colourful” personal life eventually meant that he was more of a liability than an asset and he is no longer a senator.  The coal kept being mined, and exported.

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 7, 1988 – “We are ratcheting ourselves to a new warmer climate” 

 March 7, 1996 – Australia hauled over coals for its definition of “equity” #auspol

March 7, 2001 – CNN unintentionally reveals deep societal norms around democracy