By Greg Allen https://www.npr.org/2015/03/10/392142452/florida-gov-scott-denies-banning-phrase-climate-change
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 401ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that even if the Florida governor didn’t ban mention of carbon dioxide, climate change, it’s entirely plausible that he could have. And these sorts of cultural battles in the United States with Republicans wanting to wish things they don’t like away, well known. It’s really the hide and seek tactic of a child who doesn’t understand that they’re not the center of the universe. “If I close my eyes and can’t see you, that means that you can’t see me.” The world doesn’t work like that, and most people figure that out when they’re quite young. Others, not so much.
What I think we can learn from this. In the following 10 years Florida has had various hurricanes which don’t stick around in public memory the way that I think things used to (maybe I could be wrong), and large parts of it are going to be reclaimed by the ocean, as per the 1958 warning by Frank Capra. (LINK)
And the Trump administration is De Santis writ large, without any of Governor Scott’s equivocation…
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.
Eighteen years ago, on this day, February 28th, 2007,
2007 Nine Facts about Climate Change Ray Evans [Originally published in November 2006 as a PDF (click here, 1.5 Mb). Launched in Canberra by Sir Arvi Parbo on 28 February 2007]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Lavoisier Group had been banging on since 2000 to the partial embarrassment of would-be allies. Now that climate was so steadily back on the agenda, the old war horses like Ray Evans were saddling up for another battle, possibly one last battle.
And the date, of course, is to coincide with a Labor Party summit in Parliament House where Kevin Rudd would talk about “the great moral challenge of our generation.”
What’s interesting about this one is that senior business figure Avi Parbo, by this time fairly ancient and a major figure in 15 years earlier in seducing Hawke’s Labor Party was lending his name to this tosh. RDS?
What I think we can learn from this is that for every action, there is an equal and spittle-flecked reaction, maybe not equal, but there’ll be one, because denialists want to provide sympathetic journalists with an opportunity to do a “yes, but” story.
What happened next
Evans kept pushing his nonsense faded and died in I think about 2014. But denialism did not die, and never will.
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.
Thirteen years ago, on this day, February 22nd, 2012,
On 22 February 2012, Richard Lindzen gave a talk to invited guests in a rented room in the Palace of Westminster. Note that contrary to some reports about the seminar, it was not presented to UK Parliament. Any member of the UK legislature can rent one of the many Palace of Westminster rooms for private purposes; that is what happened in this instance.
Lindzen’s presentation, the slides of which can be viewed here and video can be seen here, appeared very similar to presentations given by Christopher Monckton. In fact, Lindzen’s talk contained many of the same climate myths we recently debunked from Monckton, which frankly does not reflect well on Lindzen. The slides and presentation are almost identical to Lindzen’s testimony to the US House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing in November 2010, which in turn was almost identical to a presentation he gave at a Heartland Institute conference 6 months earlier. In fact, Lindzen did not even update some of his graphs with data beyond mid-2010 for his UK presentation.
Lindzen’s presentation contained so many misrepresentations that it would be too time consuming to address them all; however, we will address most of them here, including the base on which Lindzen built his house of misinformation cards.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was tthat there was a very small number of very determined Conservative MPs and grandees who did not nod through the 2008 Climate Change Act. The had said from the get go that it was unnecessary and or unaffordable and or impossible. Tey did what these people always do, which is get a “prestigious” scientist to come along and tell them that they were right. Lindzen has a history of being, frankly, wrong.
What I think we can learn from this
You hold a meeting in the House of Commons, you put out a press release. It encourages your side. It might get some press coverage. It might cause some people to think that there is still a debate about the existence of climate change and the severity of it. Bish, Bosh, job done.
What happened next is that the anti Climate Change Act people kept going, and finally, in 2023 the elite consensus around the need to do something (a lot) about climate change fractured when Rishi Sunak thought that he could cling to power when he and his underlings totally misinterpreted a by election result in London. Hilarity did not ensue.
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
Richard Lindzen is a very special character in the climate debate – very smart, high profile, and with a solid background in atmospheric dynamics. He has, in times past, raised interesting critiques of the mainstream science. None of them, however, have stood the test of time – but exploring the issues was useful. More recently though, and especially in his more public outings, he spends most of his time misrepresenting the science and is a master at leading people to believe things that are not true without him ever saying them explicitly.
Thirty eight years ago, on this day, January 9th, 1987 a grumpy scientist who had already been wrong about ozone was being wrong about carbon dioxide build-up.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 349ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was was that more concern was being paid to the greenhouse effect, especially since the Villach meeting in October 1985 and people were talking about it, clearly. The other context will be that Richard S. Scorer was well as ozone problems, from the 70s and his actions on the latter score a mention (p.114) in a Oreskes and Conway’s book The Merchants of Doubt.
What’s fascinating here is that latter the same year Scorer, in his capacity as President of the Royal Meteorological Society, was engaged in “high level” discussions” about climatic change (as per National Archives binge, Jan 2025 – watch this space!)
What I think we can learn from this
Relevance Deprivation Syndrome, and having been flat wrong is a real thing – see also John Maddox (twice Nature editor) And John Mason (ex-Met boss) for that matter.
What happened next
1988 was the banner year for climate change. It broke through into the public policy agenda. Scorer died in 2011. and the Guardian keep kept publishing asinine letters from asinine people
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.
Thirty three years ago, on this day, December 10th, 1991,
10 December 1991 Professor Robert Balling “Global Warming: The Facts behind the Heat” Tasman Institute seminar.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
denialists douchebag, carefully might still be alive at a think tank that was explicitly created to combat greenhouse issues.
The context was that the Rio Earth Summit was coming up in June of 1992. And therefore, the spreading of bullshit lies and doubt among concerned political elites. And of course, the Tasman Institute gives these people a place to congregate, and they can then exchange notes and feel like they matter.
What we learn is that it matters to create doubt and confusion among elites. And it takes money.
What happened next, the denial-spewing of the Tasman Institute was important during the carbon tax battle of 1994-95, or noisy if not necessarily important; it was at least busy setting up rapid rebuttals of what was being proposed. The Tasman Institute was abandoned in 1997, because it was no longer needed, frankly.
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.
Thirty years ago, on this day, November 30th, 1994,
ANDREW McINTYRE finds that the gap is just getting wider between the politicians and the scientists.
Greenpeace has just made a submission to Federal Cabinet claiming greenhouse gases should be subjected to the same stringent regulations as other damaging materials. Cabinet will make a decision early in December, and is likely to consider measures including the introduction of a carbon tax. But will it base its decisions on the facts or the fictions?
McIntyre, A. 1994. Global warming a clouded issue. Canberra Times, 30 November, p.16.
and
Meanwhile, the BCA has eschewed the denial angle, and sends a letter to Keating-
The brief introduction explains the purpose of the letter. The Business Council presents its argument in the next five paragraph and refutes [well, maybe] the view of pro-carbon tax lobbyists in the following seven paragraphs. (Worden, 1998, p133)
It concludes “Costly policies such as a unilateral carbon tax or an environmental levy are not necessary for Australia to make an equitable contribution to global emission abatement. On the other hand we believe that complementary industry and government action within a no regrets framework provide good scope for further emission abatement.” (cited Worden 1998, p130)
Letter to the MP from BCA 30 November 1994 (Wordern, 1998, ch 6)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the day before the IPA had had GB Tucker writing gibberish, and now the Canberra Times was running a denialist screed. It was the second time that year, at least, by an IPA hanger-on.
What we learn is that even a fundamentally okay newspaper like the Canberra Times was still running denialist tripe out of a misplaced sense of “balance” (See also Boykoff and Boykoff article about bias as balance).
What happened next? The carbon tax was defeated. The IPA is still with us. The Tasman Institute was abolished – surplus to requirements, job done, mission accomplished. And then Prime Minister John Howard delivered everything that the fossil fuel lobby could expect. 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.
Thirty-four and thirty years ago, on this day, November 29th, 1990/1994, two climate denialists who really ought to have known better (and did, before idiocy overtook them) were spouting their nonsens.
29 November 1990 Fred Singer The Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? Tasman Institute Seminar
and
29 November 1994 – Canberra Times piece IPA whining about greenhouse, wheeling out Brian Tucker, who had been head of the CSIRO’s Atmospheric Sciences Division.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm/359ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context is this: We have two examples of high status dickheads, one American, one Australian, denying the reality of climate change. What were both sort of relatively crucial moments in history. So in 1990, Ros Kelly had just come back from the Second World Climate Conference. The negotiations for a climate treaty were about to begin in earnest within a couple of months. In the second case, there was a battle going on about whether to have a carbon tax. And in both cases, the denialists will have said, “Oh, it’s all a scare. It’s all hysteria. Nothing should be done, needs to be done. And any action that is taken is merely rent seeking and appealing to silly ill informed portions of the electorate.”
Gee, that went well didn’t it? And I want to say this again. Fuck you, and burn in hell you pricks.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Fifteen years ago, on this day, November 23rd, 2009, everyone’s favourite science-loving and entirely rational outfit, the “Global Warming Policy Foundation” is launched
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was, speaking of nut jobs (see yesterday’s post), the Global Warming Policy Foundation was created. With some big names who mysteriously always get invited onto the BBC to spout bollocks, even though it is absurd, and scientists are pointing out the absurdity all the time. Having a “Foundation” is also a useful place to hold your meetings, especially with visiting American nut jobs.
What we learn is that the founding of these organisations usually indicates an intention to build capacity to act. The Global Warming Policy Foundation has had to hive off its campaigning subsidiary after complaints, but they’d scored some decent victories and they can be proud of the fact that they’ve been a persistent irritant of and confused the public mind, which was of their purpose all along. Just old white men who can’t admit that they backed the wrong horse, and that their beloved so-called free market capitalism is actually going to be responsible for the death of us all. Because that would mean that they were bad people supporting a bad system and that is, of course impossible, cannot be true.
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.
Twenty years ago, on this day, November 22nd, 2004 another terrible book is published, saying that carbon dioxide build-up is not a problem.
Most scientists say that global warming is not only real, but is already contributing to extreme droughts, floods and the melting of the polar ice caps. But a few scientists still insist the idea is bunk. With the Kyoto Protocol about to come into force, Melissa Fyfe investigates the doubters, their financial backers and whether they are worth listening to.
At 401 Collins Street on Monday night, 50 men gathered in a room of plush green carpet, pottery and antique lights to launch a book about the science of climate change. Some of them were scientists. But many were engineers and retired captains of industry. Presiding was Hugh Morgan, president of the Business Council of Australia and former Western Mining boss. The master of ceremonies was retired Labor politician Peter Walsh.
Climate change is about science, but not just about science. It’s about business and politics and wielding influence. The men – there was just one woman present – were all climate change sceptics, members of an organisation called the Lavoisier Group that argues global warming is nothing to worry about.
The book they launched – the latest weapon in the tussle for hearts and minds over global warming – was by Melbourne climate change sceptic William Kininmonth, former head of the National Climate Centre, part of the Bureau of Meteorology. He argues that global warming is natural and not caused by humans burning fossil fuels.
The book, Climate Change: A Natural Hazard, blasts the models used by climate scientists to predict and simulate what is happening. They are flawed, he says. “Climate change is naturally variable and it poses serious hazards for human kind,” he writes. Focusing on man-made global warming is “self-delusion on a grand scale”.
The only problem for the sceptics is that the vast majority of scientists think they are the ones that are deluded. “There’s a better scientific consensus on this than on any issue I know – except maybe Newton’s second law of dynamics”, Dr James Baker, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the US, has said.
Fyfe, M. 2004. The global warming sceptics. The Age, 27 November.ge Tool
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that although the denialists had their favoured Prime Minister who was making most of their favourite moves, there’s always time for another unreadable steaming pile of denialism.. In order to get yourself some headlines, go on a speaking tour, feel like you’re telling the truth to the ignorant savages and just generally pal around with your nut job friends. And so it came to pass.
What we learn is to paraphrase Taylor Swift “denialists gonna denialist.” It is, after all, the democracy, at least until the Atlas Network goons get their way.
What happened next. In 2007, the Lavoisier Group kicked into higher gear because everyone was concerned about climate change or was having to pretend that they were concerned about climate change.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
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.
