Category: Denial

Categories
Denial Science Scientists

January 5th, 2006 – James Hansen interviewed on Sixty Minutes

On this day 20 years ago, climate scientist James Hansen, being censored and bullied left right and centre by Bush administration appointees, breaks a sixteen year silence with the media and says yes to a request to appear on the CBS show Sixty Minutes.

Jim spent the morning of the first interview, January 5, 2006, in his apartment, completing his email about ethics to Einaudi and Leshin. He remembers feeling nervous as he walked the few blocks to his office for the filming. “I wondered if I shouldn’t just talk about the science, but then I decided, ‘To hell with this. This has got to be illegal.’ I would be blunt and not hold anything back.”

Source –  Bowen Censoring Science p. 55

and

“As a government scientist, James Hansen is taking a risk. He says there are things the White House doesn’t want you to hear but he’s going to say them anyway. Hansen is arguably the world’s leading researcher on global warming. He’s the head of NASA’s top institute studying the climate. This imminent scientist says that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science. Scott Pelley reports.”

[source]

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 governments, at the behest of the powerful interests that either control them or “influence them significantly” (depends on the facts, and also the perspective of the commentator!), have always silenced inconvenient voices – “who will rid me of this troublesome priest” etc etc. 

The specific context was that James Hansen had first felt the ire of a Republican administration in 1981 when the front page story on the New York Times in August resulted in already-issued grant funding being pulled from GISS. Hansen kickstarted climate concern with his June 23 1988 testimony to Congress. He found himself mysteriously not invited to various important policy meetings in the following years, and his testimony to Congress subtly altered/suppressed. By 2006 the Bush Jnr administration was fighting a rear-guard action, since the Kyoto PRotocol had finally been ratified by enough nations the previous year to become “law” (well, lore, really), and negotiations for a successor were underway.  The censorship and harassment of Hansen, laid out in Bowen’s book, was part of that.

What I think we can learn from this is that the powerful like to stay powerful, and suppress voices that are telling stark truths, as best they can.

What happened next Hansen retired, and started getting arrested.

Hansen is still working as a scientist and the stuff he is saying is frankly terrifying. I am glad I am closer to the grave than the cradle, because there are some shitstorms on their way.

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

Bowen, M. 2008. Censoring Science: Inside The Political Attack On Dr. James Hansen And The Truth Of Global Warming.

January 5, 1973 –  An academic article about the Arctic emerges from the Met Office

January 5, 1989 – National Academy of Science tries to chivvy Bush.

January 5, 1995 – Victorian premier comes out against carbon tax – All Our Yesterdays

January 5, 2006 – strategic hand-wringing about “Our Drowning Neighbours”

Categories
Australia Denial United States of America

December 12, 2016 – Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts shares his wisdom

Nine years ago, on this day, December 12th, 2016, the Guardian Australia reports –

 Australian senator Malcolm Roberts, of the far-right One Nation party, who is in the US, revealed he had given a speech at a CEI meeting with Ebell.

Roberts wrote the meeting was a gathering of the Cooler Heads Coalition and then listed some of the participants.

Screengrab of a post on Malcolm Robert’s Facebook page. Photograph: Facebook

They included Marc Morano, Randy Randol, Steve Milloy, Chris Horner, Craig Rucker, Patrick Michaels, Ken Haapala and James Taylor.

The views of most of the attendees are in direct contradiction to the overwhelming majority of scientific research published over decades, as well as the positions of the world’s major scientific academies.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/dec/15/one-nation-senator-joins-new-world-order-of-climate-change-denial

2016 Malcolm Roberts at CEI event http://reneweconomy.com.au/malcolm-roberts-joins-trumps-climate-deniers-fight-freedom-85911/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 404ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was … I can’t even. What a species. Anti-reflexivity etc etc.

The specific context was – the moronic Tony Abbott had recently been toppled by Malcolm Turnbull, who said climate change was a thing.

What I think we can learn from this – nothing. Or rather, that there is no science so proven that there won’t be chuckleheads out there displaying their wilful ignorance.

What happened next

Ah, I will let Wikipedia deal with this

On 27 October 2017, the full High Court, as the Court of Disputed Returns, ruled that Roberts had been ineligible to be elected to the Parliament. Roberts and One Nation leader Pauline Hanson subsequently announced that Roberts would nominate as a candidate for the electoral district of Ipswich at the 2017 Queensland state election.[18] He was not elected.[19] In February 2018, it was announced that Roberts would lead the One Nation Senate ticket in Queensland at the 2019 Australian federal election. Pauline Hanson said: “Malcolm Roberts has got the reputation as a powerhouse, the empirical science man, and he’s really taken it up to members of parliament”.[20]

In September 2017, before the High Court ruling on Roberts’s eligibility, blogger Tony Magrathea initiated a High Court action alleging that Roberts had sat in the Senate while disqualified, contrary to the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975. On 24 June 2019, the High Court found the allegation proved and ordered Roberts to pay a penalty of $6,000 to Magrathea.[21]

Re-election

With his citizenship clear, Roberts was elected to the Senate again 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: 

December 12, 1977 – UK Government launches energy efficiency scheme, because Jimmy Carter had visited…

December 12, 1990 – Paul Keating refers greenhouse issue to Industry Commission

December 12, 2007 – Canada leaves Kyoto Protocol as Australia joins

December 12, 2007 – RIP William Kellogg

Categories
Australia Denial

November 28, 1988 – early doubt-casting

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, November 28th, 1988, a doubt-casting paper from Federal Department of Primary Industries and Energy paper discussed at first “National Energy Consultative Council”

Clear answers on the climatic impact on Australia of the greenhouse effect will not be achieved for at least 10 years because of limited scientific knowledge, according to a Federal Department of Primary Industries and Energy paper.

The paper cautions against attributing some existing climatic conditions, like the drought in the United States and floods in Bangladesh, to the greenhouse effect.

Gill, P. 1988. Paper cautious on greenhouse effect. Australian Financial Review, November 30

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 352ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the warnings about carbon dioxide build-up had been coming since the early 1980s (ONA report, Tucker’s monograph). But in 1984, Australia had become the world’s largest coal exporter, so, there’s that.

The specific context was by mid-1988 the question of “the greenhouse effect” was one that could no longer be simply ignored.  Denial and doubt-casting became part of the mix.

What I think we can learn from this – from the beginning, the Australian state was keen to defend exporters from scrutiny, challenges.

What happened next – nothing substantive has changed in the intervening 4 decades.  Except the atmospheric concentration of CO2.

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

Also on this day: 

November 28, 1976 – climate modelling workshop in USA

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

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

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia Denial

November 25, 2010 – GB Tucker dies

Fifteen years ago, on this day, November 25th, 2010,

2010 GB Tucker dies, after writing a bunch of shite in the IPA Review after retirement (f.ex. November 30, 1994 – Another denialist dolt – “Global warming a clouded issue”)

In 1986, he was singing a different tune.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Tucker had written the 1981 monograph on C02. (LINK)

The specific context was that upon retiring from the CSIRO’s Atmospheric Physics division Tucker had written a couple of dodgy denialist articles for the Institute of Public Affairs. An ignominious end to what could have been a reasonable career.

What I think we can learn from this – 1) people get Relevance Deprivation Syndrome.  2) Education is no real protection against being spectacularly wrong.

What happened next – denialism continued, obvs.

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 25, 1968 – First atmospheric layers collection of carbon dioxide… – All Our Yesterdays

November 25, 1993 – House of Commons briefing on carbon taxes

November 25, 2000 – CoP meeting ends in official disarray…

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia Denial United States of America

October 18, 1991 – American denialist in Australia….

Thirty four years ago, on this day, October 18th, 1991,

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

Not his first rodeo…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that carbon dioxide build-up had broken through as an issue in 1988. By 1989 the George C Marshall Institute (set up to shill for Reagan’s Star Wars bullshit) had entered the fray and was enabling denialist efforts, alongside the Global Climate Coalition etc. Australia was one market for its shite.

Singer – Singer had been a semi-respected scientist and bureaucrat from the 1950s onward. But at some point he had jumped the shark. Here, he was fresh from warping the words of a dying Roger Revelle, who had known that many people did not think Singer was much of a scientist…

The specific context was that the Ecologically Sustainable Development process was coming to an end and the moment of maximum danger – where the government might actually take on some of its recommendations – was about now. If you were going to bring out some idiot not very good scientist (as per Roger Revelle) now would be a good time. And so it came to pass…

What I think we can learn from this – evil people aren’t necessarily stupid or incompetent. (And conversely, the “good” guys aren’t all smart and competent.)

What happened next – The ESD got thrown in the bin by Paul Keating, who toppled Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke a couple of months later. The Tasman Institute kept up with the tours, economic modelling 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.

Also on this day: 

October 18, 1973 – “how on earth do you stop using fossil fuels?” 

October 18, 1983- US news networks tell the truth about #climate. Yes, 1983.

October 18, 1974 – Weinberg’s “Global Effects of Man’s Production of Energy” published 

 October 18, 1983 – All US news networks run “greenhouse effect” stories

October 18, 1983- US news networks tell the truth about #climate. Yes, 1983.

Categories
Denial

Neo-liberal intelligence is about NOT joining the dots

Short post, because actual work I should be doing.

We all know the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes – some conmen tell the Emperor the new clothes can only be seen by those with discernment and refinement. The Emperor is naked, everybody can see it, but have the ability/discipline to not convert what they see into knowledge.

It’s quite a talent, to be that obedient and willing to go along with the patently absurd.

The “neo-liberal” in the title is not strictly accurate, of course, because positivism and obedience is ancient and seen in all the isms. Stalinism had Lysenko, etc etc. But I use it for now because, well, we live under neoliberalism, since the early 1980s really, which is a Long Time.

All this is because an impact and action denialist commented on a Bsky post yesterday. I had made the point that our leaders had been warned about carbon dioxide build-up and its impacts over and over, for decades.

There was some one-and-a-half (not quite “to”, you see) and fro as he kept moving the goalposts. I pointed out that he was picking one metric (“well-being”) and other metrics were possible, such as ocean acidification and biodiversity loss.

He replied with this

I screengrabbed it simply because it was objectively hilarious.

Anyway, this was pretty much the final straw and because he was also setting up strawmen and claiming I had said things I hadn’t, I pulled the plug.

The point is this. There are “smart” (been to the right universities, got the right credentials) people who are “successful” who are incapable (beyond merely unwilling, I think) to join the dots, because to join the dots would crush their cosmology. If you say the Emperor is naked, you are cast out, and you also have to cope with the humiliation of your previous stupidity/wilful blindness. “Awks.”

This is not a new observation, and having written this, I am embarrassed for having wasted my time and your bandwidth on it.

Categories
Business Responses Denial Incumbent strategies Industry Associations United States of America

September 9, 1997 – “Global Climate Information Project”

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, September 10th, 1997 another pro-apocalypse propaganda outfit was launched, ahead of the UNFCCC negotiations to take place in Kyoto (COP-3).

“Global Climate Information Project” launched” 

Launched on September 9, 1997, by some of the nation’s most powerful trade associations, the Global Climate Information Project (GCIP) has rolled out an ambitious campaign for combating possible emission regulations courtesy of the Kyoto conference.

Through an advertising campaign that, according to GCIP figures, has already spent more than $3 million in newspaper and television spots and could spend as much as $13 million, the GCIP aims to cast doubt upon the need for emissions controls by questioning the politics and the science behind a United Nations agreement.

Writing on the media campaign unveiled by the GCIP, Bruce Clark of the Financial Times remarked that it “could become one of the most expensive lobbying efforts since the ‘Harry and Louise’ commercials that helped doom” the Clinton administration’s health-care reform proposal”

“A Clear View, Vol 4, No 16, Clearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy and Research” 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that business interests always mobilise and collaborate to face down challenges to their right to socialise the costs and privatise the profits. There’s lots of good research on this – Merchants of Doubt by Oreskes and Conway remains a good place to start.

The specific context was that Kyoto was coming and business had already done a great job in demonising it, in boxing in US Senators. But you can never be too sure, so thus the “Information” (sic) Project.

What I think we can learn from this. The war for the public mind goes on, and on.  

What happened next – the war for the public mind went on. 

GCIP ran a whole bunch of adverts on American TV.

New battalions were formed, new weapons tested. The strategic imperative remains unchanged – keep the peasants too busy to fight back. Buy off the smart one that you can, sideline or dephysicalise those you can’t.

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…

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

Categories
Denial United Kingdom United States of America

September 9, 1971 – Stephen Schneider’s letter, and a World Model

Fifty four years ago, on this day, September 9th, 1971 climate scientist Stephen Schneider wrote a letter to the New York Times about some industry bullshit that the Times had run as a n op-ed.

AND on the same day, things were a foot in the United Kingdom

“Whereas Bray had been highly sceptical of the World model, Cottrell had been enthused by its demonstration. Returning to Britain, he proposed that the British government develop a similar model, stating his belief that ‘Forrester’s approach is the most important development of its kind since Keynes’ general theory’.117

Given the centrality of Keynesianism in post-war economic policy, this was a significant claim. Heath, as his early enthusiasm for management science had revealed, had some interest in forecasting and simulation, and gave his permission for a scoping study on the feasibility of a British world model. Cottrell held a meeting on the subject at the Cabinet Office in September 1971, in which he had told the assembled civil servants that developing a global model for British purposes would require £50,000 and four staff. In response, an unnamed civil servant argued that the Treasury had a more sophisticated econometric model that it used for forecasting. Despite this criticism, the general idea of a global environmental model was well received, and further work was proposed.118 “

Histories of Technology, the Environment and Modern Britain

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 326ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that in the late 1960s people started worrying about the global impact of industrialisation and population growth (as distinct from concerns about localised pollution).

The specific context was that a) Schneider was already making a name for himself as combative and b) the British state was beginning to think about systems modelling (aware that the Club of Rome report was coming)…

What I think we can learn from this is that there was mention of carbon dioxide and limits to growth way back when. It had pushed out from the undergrowth in the late 1960s…

What happened next: By 1973, we were back to sleep, for the most part. A few new NGOs, a couple of magazines (Your Environment, The Ecologist).  It is very very hard to combat a world view.

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…

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

Categories
Denial United States of America

August 20, 1996 – Denialist wastes time, energy in stupid smear

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, August 20th, 1996,

Frederick Seitz, in his capacity as president of the George C. Marshall Institute in Washington, DC, assembled the small group of sceptics from among the institute’s leaders and acquired support from some senators in US Congress. They wrote a letter to the two co-chairmen of Working Group I and myself (dated 20 August 1996) and to Tim Wirth at the US State Department, again challenging the outcome of the Madrid meeting. On this occasion the politics of climate change was more in focus. Some of the senators who had signed the letter had attended the second conference of the parties to the Climate Convention in Geneva in July as observers.
The response from the State Department (dated 24 September) was quite detailed and succinct. A short and carefully written review of the relevant scientific conclusions in the IPCC SAR was given (presumably prepared by Bob Watson, the co-chairman of Working Group II and in the USA responsible for the White House for environmental issues.  Wirth rejected the accusations and then sketched the Administration’s view of the US policy that should be aimed for during the next few years.

(Bolin, 2007: 132)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 362ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the denial campaigns against carbon dioxide had kicked off properly in 1989, George Marshall Institute pivoted from shilling for Star Wars to attacking James Hansen and any other scientist who stuck their head above the parapet.  In this they were joined by the Global Climate Coalition (lobbying policymakers), the Climate Council (gumming up the international negotiations), etc

The specific context was the release of the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) saw the denial and smear campaigns kick into high gear, because the summary for policy makers included the fateful phrase (suggested by Bolin) that human activity had already had a “discernible” impact on the atmosphere. So the denialists picked on someone they perceived to be vulnerable, and tried to smear him. Fortunately, it didn’t work (though they tried the same shit with Michael Mann later).

What I think we can learn from this is that the denial lobby were unprincipled scum (I know, this may come as a shock) who deserve to rot in hell.

What happened next The IPCC kept producing reports. And reports. And reports. And the emissions kept climbing because, really, who the hell listens to scientists?

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

Bolin, B. 2007. A History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change: The Role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Also on this day: 

August 20, 1988 – Hansen’s model released – All Our Yesterdays

August 20, 1997 – Australian Mining Industry operative misrepresents the #climate science. Obvs.

August 20, 2016 – Exxon’s gonna get sued? – All Our Yesterdays

August 20, 2018 – Greta Thunberg’s first protest

Categories
Australia Denial

July 20, 1995 – Patrick Moore at the National Press Club

Thirty years ago, on this day, July 20th, 1995 the Canadian Patrick Moore, who did not, in fact, co-found Greenpeace, speaks at National Press Club in Canberra.

Hard choices for the environmental movement, Greenspirit or Greenpeace

You can listen to it if you like – 59 minutes of your life you will never get back…

See also  22 Jul 1995 – Saturday FORUM Internal tensions threaten environmental successes – Trove

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that by the early 1990s (earlier, really) the incumbents had figured out that a mix of scientists and “environmentalists” who accused others of being alarmists would be a very very effective way of dampening concern….

The specific context was various Australian groups had become adept at inviting US and Canadian public figures and experts to Australia for speaking jaunts – guaranteed to get some free publicity, spread some confusion.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are a limited number (perhaps) of tactics, and incumbents know how and when to use them.

What happened next – the Keating Government (toast by this point) was replaced the following March, 1996, by the a Liberal/National government of John Howard, and these sorts of speaking tours became less necessary for a long time. 

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 20, 1989 – Bob Hawke fumbles the green football…

July 20, 2014- the “Green Blob” blamed