Category: Denial

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”

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