Category: Denial

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

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia Denial United States of America

“Snowballs and morons and coal lumps, oh my”: on the hysterical materiality of old white men

Today some moronic Republican senator [Redundant adjective? Ed] brandished a lump of coal in the US Senate (thanks to Aaron for alerting me)

Via this Bluesky

This takes me back almost 20 years to the GE ‘clean coal’ advert (warning – utterly delirious).

And it takes me back to another cognitively-challenged Republican Senator [?? Ed], the late and unlamented James Inhofe who threw a snowball on the Senate Floor to ‘disprove’ global warming and rile the snowflake liberals, back in 2015.

A couple of years later, in the quarry-with-a-state-attached some people persist in calling “Australia”, the then-Treasurer (who would become Prime Minister), Scotty Morrison brandished a lump of coal in Parliament.  Some points to note: It was in the middle of a heatwave. He handed it on to one of the most absurd politicians of all time, Barnaby Joyce, who mimicked (?) wide-eyed joy at the gift.  The lump of dead matter (the coal, I mean) was provided by the Minerals Council of Australia, the industry lobby group that has done probably more than any other to stop meaningful climate action in Australia.  The lump was lacquered, so it wouldn’t smudge anyone’s hands – that’s the cleanest coal ever gets.

What’s going on here?  This isn’t just trolling, an effort to “own the libs,” and maintain the morale of Good Red Blooded Americans/Australians.  This is also, I suspect, some sort of desperate attempt to convince themselves of what they fear is a delusion, by having something material to hand.  The Marxists talk about (or used to – I don’t keep up with the jabber so much anymore) historical materialism.  This is more hysterical (2)  materiality.

Where will it all end? More of these stunts. More performative anti-nature nihilism. More asshole ambit claims.  O temperature, o mores.

See also

This blog post that I completely forgot I had written but says pretty much what I have said above.

Wind beneath their contempt

Petromasculinity 

Anti-reflexivity – see video

Footnotes

  1. David Brooks – the posterchild for overpromoted well-educated idiots – has written an entire kinda sorta mea culpa (but not really, because it is STILL the left’s fault) about ‘Where We Go From Here’ that manages to say not a single word about the climate (and ecological) debacle. Maybe if we pretend it isn’t there, or if we put our hands over our eyes, it isn’t there.  See also Dave Vetter’s review of the prosperity gospel for atheists book by Ezra Klein.
  2. I am alive to both the gendered and Fraudian aspects here, but idgaf for present purposes
Categories
Australia Denial

April 4 –  2005 – APEC conference at Parliament House “Managing Climate Change: Practicalities and Realities in a post-Kyoto future”. 

On this day 20 years ago, a denialist/delay-ist bunch of idiots gathered at Parliament House… The conference was sponsored by Xstrata and ExxonMobil…. (further gory details here)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Kyoto Protocol had finally come into effect thanks to the Russians saying yes in exchange for World Trade Organisation membership. This meant that formal negotiations for a “post-Kyoto” protocol/agreement would be beginning soon.

Meanwhile though, Australia and the UK were on the outer, and scrambling to come up with plausible sounding “ways forward” (mostly involving fantasy technologies. Meanwhile, the denialists were still thick … on the ground.

This event is kind of a sequel to a 1997 conference “Countdown to Kyoto”, with overlapping attendees and presenters.

What we learn Morons gonna moron.  And scumbags gonna lie (down) with morons.

What happened next The scumbaggery continued. The emissions climbed, and the consequences began to rock up. So it went.


References

Australian APEC Study Centre – SourceWatch

This from Jennifer Marohasy

Mixing Views on Climate – Jennifer Marohasy

Papers from the Managing Climate Change: Practicalities and Realities in a post-Kyoto Future conference held in Canberra on 4th April are now available at Tech Central Station.

This is perhaps a first conference where acknowledged ‘climate skeptics’ including Professor Bob Carter have given papers alongside Australian government representatives including Dr Brian Fisher from ABARE.

A delegate from the Chinese embassy spoke about the need for China to reduce its reliance on coal as an energy source and China’s intension to build possibly 6 new nuclear power stations over the next 15 years.

Senior Cliamte Negotiator from the US Department of State gave an interesting and fairly technical paper on US policy directions.

Papers also include a contribution from author of Taken by Storm and key contributor to the ‘hockey stick’ debate, Canadian Ross McKitrick.

The conference papers are supplemented with Background papers that include an analysis of global carbon trading prospects.

The “Tech Central” link takes you to this

April 4, 1964 – Revelle’s PSAC Working Group Five

April 4, 1957 – New Scientist runs story on carbon dioxide build-up

April 4, 1964 – President Johnson’s Domestic Council on climate…

April 4, 1978 – UK Chief Scientific Advisor worries about atmospheric C02 build-upApril 4 – Interview with Ro Randal about “Living With Climate Crisis

Categories
Denial United States of America

 March 10, 2015 – Florida governor denies banning words “climate change”

Ten years ago, on this day, March 10th, 2015,

Florida Gov. Scott Denies Banning Phrase ‘Climate Change’

March 10, 20154:16 PM ET

Heard on All Things Considered

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)

What happened next

They have stopped denying that they are denying climate change. In May 2024 another Republican governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis signs bill scrubbing ‘climate change’ from Florida state laws.

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.

Also on this day: 

March 10, 1988 – Congressional staff (go on a) retreat on Climat

March 10, 2010 – ABC chairman gives stupid speech to staff

March 10, 2012- RIP Sherry Rowland