Category: Denial

Categories
Denial Germany

November 10, 1995 – moronic “Leipzig Declaration” by moronic denialists

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, November 10, 1995, idiot denialists do idiocy in Leipzig

1995 Nov. 9-10, 1995

Leipzig Declaration International Symposium on the Greenhouse Controversy, held in Leipzig, Germany and follow up on on Nov. 10-11, 1997.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Declaration

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.phptitle=Leipzig_Declaration_on_Global_Climate_Change

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the denialists had been in full throat since 1989. In Leipzig, a bunch of denialists were making one of their periodic idiotic declarations that they don’t believe in 19th century physics.

And because it contains doctors and professors and maybe even a couple of Nobel Prize winners in different fields, it’s gonna get some media attention. It’s gonna get quoted in various Parliaments and so it came to pass. It’s a tactic that they use to try and puff themselves up, to pretend that they have some credibility. It sounds scientific, it sounds responsible and adult. But it’s actually just the petulant musings of a bunch of damaged boys (and it is mostly boys) who don’t like the fact that there are consequences at a physical level for their dreams of avarice and domination. Yeah, I’m all out of sympathy today. 

On the same day, the Leipzig twunts were being rewarded for their cowardice, a bunch of brave black people were being murdered for their courage. 

What I think we can learn from this

you can rely on rich old white privilege men to have a higher fuck Todd potential, quote quotient. You can rely on military dictatorships to murder Earth defenders.

What happened next

The denialists kept denying; the Leipzig Declaration was joined by the Oregon petition. All part of the larger asshole manoeuvres. And future generations continued to get screwed. 

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.

Categories
Australia Denial United Kingdom

November 8, 2013 – “One religion is enough” says John Howard

Ten years ago, on this day, November 8, 2013, John Howard gave a speech at the Global Warming “Policy” “Foundation” with the title “One Religion is Enough“

and 

Same day – Typhoon Haiyan, known in the Philippines as Typhoon Yolanda, was one of the strongest tropical cyclones ever recorded, which devastated portions of Southeast Asia, particularly the Philippines.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396,7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard had been booted out as Prime Minister, and even MP, partly because he’d been such a terrible dickhead on climate, as befits old white conservative men. 

The other context is that some “charity” called the Global Warming Policy Foundation had been set up and were holding annual lectures. So it seemed like a good idea to get little Johnny on.

It’s an interesting title, isn’t it, “one religion is enough”? Well, if we’re only going to have one religion, my vote is a for either a particularly humane form of Buddhism, or Fuck it, let’s just go to paganism. Let’s get rid of the bearded sky gods. And especially when the bearded sky gods have been whittled down to one, because that seems to have caused no end of trouble. Or, if not caused, it been a useful adjunct to keeping that particular shit show on the road…

Aaand breathe….

What I think we can learn from this is that anti-reflexive organisations are good at gaming the media, they knew that this would get outrage and clicks. Makes them feel like they exist. 

What happened next

Well, the weather vane, Tony Abbott also gave a speech at the GWPF, and it’ll be interesting to see if the Global Warming Policy Foundation finds Scott Morrison too much of a reputational risk to them.

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.

Categories
Agnotology Denial United Kingdom

November 3, 1990 – more smears about the IPCC, in the Financial Times 

Thirty three years ago, on this day, November 3, 1990, the normally sane Financial Times published a brain fart of an article

Thomas, David (1990) The cracks in the greenhouse theory. Financial Times 3 November

There were claims that the IPCC organisers had deliberately excluded strong dissenters, such as Richard Lindzen, Hugh Elsaesser and Fred Singer, from participating in the IPCC. One unnamed scientist went so far as to claim that the supporters of the greenhouse theory ‘behave like Hitler’ by conspiring to prevent critics from publishing their conclusions in leading scientific journals (quoted in Thomas, 1990.)

Paterson, M (1996) Page 45

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the IPCC’s first assessment report had been delivered two months earlier. Since then, there had been fierce contestation of it. And this article in the FT was part of the push back ahead of the second World Climate Conference in Geneva and the imminent start of the climate negotiations. So the FT was wanting to cater to its various members, readers, some of whom would want to doubt awkward physical realities.

Eleven months earlier, Forbes had run a similar piece of nonsense (Link).

What I think we can learn from this

I am not suggesting that the Global Climate Coalition or the British Coal board phoned up the editor of the FT and ordered him to order an underling to write this. That’s not how power works. That’s not how the world usually works, 99.99 times out of 100. 

What happened next

The FT stopped being quite so fucking useless on climate change. It’s currently quite good (especially when they publish my letters).

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.

Categories
Australia Denial

November 1988 – Australian Mining Journal says C02 is a Good Thing

There used to be a trade journal called “Australian Journal of Mining”. Anthropologically it was quite interesting. Among all the stuff about, well, mining – new machines, the Perils of Regulation, etc (standard trade journal fare) – there was also the occasional “Know Your Enemy” thing – including hit jobs on Bob Brown (“The Paid Piper”), Deep Ecology as Fascism (Fascism being anything that might affect profits, obviously) and this from November 1988. The timing is telling – in that month there was a huge conference, linked by television satellite hook-ups (then relatively new) held in all Australian state capitals and also Darwin. It was called “Greenhouse 88” (there’s a post about it coming up).

The AJM were having none of this particular greenie scare about carbon dioxide, which was clearly not only harmless, but was probably GOOD for you…

Categories
Australia Denial

September 23, 2013 – Media Watch versus climate denialists …

Ten years ago, on this day, September 23, 2013, the Australian state broadcaster explained – for the umpteenth time – the dreadful lies the radio shock jocks were peddling.

On 23 September 2013 the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) program Media Watch explored a textbook example of why too many Australians and their politicians continue to stumble through a fog of confusion and doubt in regard to climate change. The case under the microscope typified irresponsible journalism. 

Media Watch host Paul Barry, with trademark irony, announced: ‘Yes it’s official at last … those stupid scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] got it wrong’, in their latest assessment report. He quoted 2GB breakfast jock Chris Smith from a week earlier saying the IPCC had ‘fessed up’ that its computers had drastically overestimated rising temperatures. ‘That’s a relief,’ said Barry, and how do we know this? ‘Because Chris Smith read it on the front page of last Monday’s Australian newspaper. When it comes to rubbishing the dangers of man-made global warming the shock jocks certainly know who they can trust.’

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia had been going through a very high pitch culture war on climate policy since 2006, positions had hardened even further and climate denial became “acceptable” (i.e. had lower social and political costs than had been assumed) again from about 2010 onwards. And various so cold shock jocks wallowed in it

What I think we can learn from this is that it is easy to create an echo-chamber of mutually reinforcing bullshit that gets published in newspapers then commentated on, then reported then there is reportage on the commentating of the reportage of the commentating. It is all cheap, it is easy, and it does not need to connect to anything actually scientific.

What happened next

After becoming Prime Minister later in 2013, Tony Abbott proved that he was not a fit leader for the Liberal Party let alone by country. He was turfed by his own party after only narrowly beating an empty chair in a January 2015 vote.

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.

Categories
Denial

September 18, 2013 – Feeble denialists launch feeble denialist “report”

Ten years ago, on this day, September 18, 2013, a bunch of sad denialists did their sad denial …

The NIPCC’s fourth report, entitled Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, was published

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that they were keeping on keeping on with their ludicrous cherry-picked data and whataboutery. It had become part of their social identity and the echo chamber kept echoing. They were presenting stuff at their own “Heartland Institute” meetings and so forth but really by this time it was getting a bit pathetic.

What I think we can learn from this is that old white men will keep on being embarrassing long beyond the point at which it has become embarrassing

What happened next – the efforts at denial have mostly now transformed into what is called lukewarmism, or attribution/impact denialism. There’s less denial about the planet warming, but there is denial about the consequences of the warming or the causes of the warming.

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

Categories
Agnotology Denial Propaganda United States of America

September 14, 1993 – scientists suffer backlash (not outa thin air though)

Thirty years ago, on this day, September 14, 1993, the New York Times reports on industry efforts to intimidate scientists into shutting up.

As the Clinton Administration prepares to announce in the next few weeks a plan for controlling waste industrial gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, conservatives and industry groups have mounted a renewed assault on the idea that global warming is a serious and possibly catastrophic threat.

Stevens, W. 1993. Scientists Confront Renewed Backlash on Global Warming. New York Times, September 14.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Clinton had already lost the BTU energy tax battle and was trying to recover some reputation by proposing other forms of CO2 legislation. But crucially those members of the coalition that had defeated the BTU were not downing weapons, they were up for another fight, to consolidate the break, as they say in tennis…

What I think we can learn from this is that at-will lose the opponents of action are gonna keep coming at you. And they learn from both their defeats and victories…

What happened next

The industry goons’ next famous victory was rendering Kyoto meaningless before it even happened.

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.

Categories
Denial International processes United States of America

August 16, 2002 – “Oil Lobby Urges Bush to Keep Climate Change Off the Table at Earth Summit”

Twenty one years ago, on this day, August 16, 2002, The Times Newspaper reports

Conservative lobbyists in the US funded by Esso have urged President Bush to derail the Earth summit in Johannesburg because it is anti-freedom, anti-people, anti-globalization and anti-Western.

Browne, A. 2002. USA: Oil Lobby Urges Bush to Keep Climate Change Off the Table at Earth Summit ,The Times, August 16

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 


The context was it was 10 years since Rio and the United Nations does like a good round number conference. George Dubya Bush had recently been doing some talk about “clean skies” and technology, this and that. 

And the anti Climate Lobby groups just wanted to make sure that he didn’t slip. So this was laying down some “suppressing fire” and to force proponents of action to expend energy in simply keeping climate change (literally) ‘on the agenda.’ 

What I think we can learn from this

What’s interesting, what we can learn is, this is what they do. They’re constantly laying down “suppressing fire”, which didn’t really work as well as they’d hoped. But it makes you feel good when you do it, keeps you in a job, makes you test your ammo, and your guns, so why not? I can say the language is extraordinary, but nothing special. They do genuinely frame it as liberty and freedom and democracy versus the evil globalist at least for public consumption. 

What happened next

Climate stayed on the agenda. Bush stayed a prick. The carbon dioxide kept accumulating.

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.

Categories
Denial United States of America

August 13, 2007 –  Newsweek nails denialists

Sixteen years ago, on this day, August 13, 2007, the US publication Newsweek, which had been reporting on carbon dioxide build-up since 1953, had a very good report on the tactics of the denialists, under the clever title “The Truth about Denial.”

“Organisations and companies such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and ExxonMobil emphasise conservative climate change scenarios and highlight the potential economic costs of stricter controls” (Sharon Begley, “The Truth about Denial”, Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

Vale Sharon Begley – https://www.statnews.com/2021/01/17/sharon-begley-path-breaking-science-journalist-dies/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that climate change was absolutely back on the agenda with Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” and the fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. There was renewed vigour in the international process with lots of talk about what would replace the Kyoto Protocol. And therefore, the denialists were up to their old tricks. Sharon Begley’s article is a good summation of how and why they do what they do. 

What I think we can learn from this

Mainstream press articles can often give you the facts you need. You may need to bolt on a decent theoretical framework, but serious mainstream media (often the business press is best) can give you a bunch of worthwhile facts to be going on with.

Btw, from reading this article, it is a tolerably accurate picture of incumbents’ behaviour. In any democratic society (a) these tactics would be taughtf in school so people could defend their minds against the onslaught  and (b) of course, you would not need to be taught it because there would laws and structures that prevented the ownership of the government by concentrated economic interests. 

What happened next

The denial kept going, becoming a hydra and a T1000 at the same 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.

Categories
Australia Denial

August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 7, 2003, Australian Prime Minister John Howard was up to his old climate-trashing tricks.

Howard meets with Sam Walsh and Brian Harwood and others in Sydney to scupper an emissions trading scheme that Costello etc were putting forward.. How do we know? It’s in the leaked minutes of the LETAG group…

What do I mean? The “Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group” (LETAG) that he’d set up. He called a meeting in May 2004 asking for oil company help in killing off the renewables he had been forced to accept as part of the energy mix…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard was under pressure to say yes to a national emissions trading scheme. One had been defeated in 2000, thanks to his henchman Nick Minchin, but this time the whole Cabinet – the Treasurer, the Foreign Affairs, the Environment guy etc were all united in agreeing that Australia should have a national emissions trading scheme. Howard didn’t want it, so he delayed the decision by a month. He then consulted with a couple of his mates, stiffened his spine, came back and afterwards and said “no.” And was able to do it, though the action was then pilloried and used by Labour in 2006-7, to show just how anti climate action Howard had been. 

By the way, we know about this meeting, but not from its memoirs or anyone else’s. But because the information is contained in the minutes of a meeting of the Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group. The minutes were not usually released, but these were leaked. And they were leaked, because at a later meeting in 2004, Howard was pleading with big business to help him smash renewables. Yes, you read that right. 

What I think we can learn from this

There is a jail cell with John Howard’s name on it at the Hague.

What happened next

Howard ruled until November 2007. And over his 11 years caused enormous damage to Australia, not just on climate policy (though obviously that’s a biggie).

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.