Category: Denial

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

Categories
Denial United States of America

June 25, 1996 – Wall Street Journal pretends to be a newspaper

Twenty nine  years ago, on this day, June 25th, 1996 the Wall Street Journal pretended to be a newspaper. 

“Santer immediately drafted a letter to the [Wall Street] Journal, which forty of the other IPCC lead authors signed. Santer explained what had happened, how he had been instructed by Houghton to make the changes, and why the changes were late in coming. At first the Journal wouldn’t publish it. After three tries, Santer finally got a call from the Journal’s letters editor and the letter was finally published on June 25. Santer’s reply had been heavily edited, and the names of the forty other cosigners deleted.

Oreskes and Conway, 2010 Page 208

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the second Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report had said that there was already a discernible impact of human activity on the earth’s climate (It’s hard to remember now, but this was a Big Deal back then). The denialist attack dogs were predictably out for blood, and they had latched onto what they perceived to be a vulnerable scientist, Ben Santer.

What I think we can learn from this:  Assholes like the Global Climate Coalition and the so-called “George Marshall Institute” goons were amplified by “newspapers” like the Wall Street Journal, who were happy to publish hatchet jobs and then refuse significant right of reply.

What happened next  The denialists found a new object of hate – Michael E. Mann.  And the caravan kept rolling on.  The emissions climbed, the concentrations climbed, the consequences climbed. 

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 25, 2002, 2003 and 2008 – CCS’s first hype cycle builds – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Denial

June 17, 1994 – Moron versus physics. Sorry, “Moran”

Thirty one years ago, on this day, June 17th, 1994, a genius corrected all our WrongThink with an article that has aged like a glass of milk.

Global warming is a con. There is no justification for threatening those jobs that depend on coal and thermal power stations, says ALAN MORAN

The greenhouse phenomenon has raised far more hot air than has emerged from global temperature records. Not all agree with this.

Greenpeace has launched its “Climate Timebomb” catalogue, claiming documentary evidence of global warming attributable to increased emissions of carbon dioxide….

Moran, A. 1994. “Cool appraisal time for global warming.” Australian Financial Review, June 17, p. 26.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.9ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Australian denial had kicked into high gear in 1989 and continued, with institutional support from outfits like the IPA and the Tasman Institute, onwards.

The specific context was that the carbon tax proposal was beginning to take shape, and opponents wanted to lay down some suppressing fire.

What I think we can learn from this is that “newspapers” like the Fin were – and I suppose remain – mostly just propaganda outlets for stupid/greedy/venal people who want to (mis)shape the public discourse.

What happened next  Soft denial became mainstream thanks to the coming of the Howard Government, and the hard denial picked up speed with the formation of the Lavoisier Group in 2000.  And 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.

Also on this day: 

June 17, 2009 –  Blistering speech about how “The Climate Nightmare is Upon Us” by Christine Milne – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Activism Denial

June 5, 2006 – IPA sets up astroturf outfit

Twenty years ago, on this day, June 5th, the “think” tank the IPA set up a spoiler outfit, called the Australian Environment Foundation (geddit?)

2005 Australian Environment Foundation set up by IPA (see Fyfe on 8th)

 Australia’s newest environment group is ruffling feathers – but not where you would expect.

The green movement is decidedly downbeat about the weekend launch of the Australian Environment Foundation, a group whose registered place of business is the Institute of Public Affairs, a right-wing think tank.

Indeed, lawyers for the Australian Conservation Foundation, the nation’s leading green group, have requested the new body stop using the title of Australian Environment Foundation as it is “deceptively similar” to its own. The public could be easily confused, executive director Don Henry said.

The group’s chairwoman is Jennifer Marohasy, director of the IPA’s environment unit. Other listed directors include mining and timber industry lobbyists and a dairy farmer. The group says it has 150 members.

Fyfe, M. 2005. Cool reception for new green group. The Age, 8 June.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Cool-reception-for-new-green-group/2005/06/07/1118123837470.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the IPA had been pushing hard against environmentalist activity for decades. It had published its first “greenhouse hoax/scare” articles in 1989, and been a key player in the denial campaigns.

The specific context was that by 2006, with increased activity in the UK, the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, private members’ bills by ALP figures (including Anthony Albanese), it was a fair bet that some sort of astroturf outfit/offshoot was going to be a good investment. The IPA was also teaming up with various American outfits to try and delegitimise NGOs, which makes its setting up of a fake one all the more entertaining.

What I think we can learn from this is that the job of the IPA and other junktanks like it is to defend the capital accumulation activities of the already rich, and they are relatively competent at that. Or at least keen.

What happened next  The AEF staggers on, not that anyone gives it any attention.

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: 

June 5, 1993 and 2011- let’s have a march for #climate… It will make us feel good. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Denial

April 18, 1992 – The Australian carries page one headline “Global Warming May Lower Sea Levels”

On this day 33 years ago

New and conflicting predictions continue to be made. For example, on 18 April 1992 the Australian carried a page one headline ‘Global Warming May Lower Sea Levels’, while later in the business section a case was made against a carbon tax on fossil fuels.  Business interests remain unimpressed by the call to tax themselves.

(Love, 1992:44)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was that the international negotiations were grinding on (in face of United States intransigence). The denial and confusion campaigns funded by the “Global Climate Coalition” were grinding out, and tame “journalists” were dutifully regurgitating the lies and calling it a contribution to Informing the Public.

What we learn

The Australian has not been a newspaper for a very long time. A poisonous propaganda rag.

What happened next.

The UNFCCC treaty was toothless, at absolute best worthless. The “journalists” prospered. Murdoch prospered (if you can call it that).  We’re so fubarred.

References

Love, R. 1992. Stranger Weather Still.  Arena 99/100 pp.39-46.

Also on this day

April 18, 1970 – Harold Wilson in York, bigging up UN, rights/obligations

April 18, 1989 – begging letter to world leaders sent

April 18, 2013, Liberal Party bullshit about “soil carbon” revealed to be bullshit