Category: Denial

Categories
Australia Denial

July 16, 1990 – Canberra Times gives denialist tosh a platform

Thirty three years ago, on this day, July 16, 1990, the asinine comments of Hugh Morgan, culture warrior and businessman, are reported in the Canberra Times

 ADELAIDE: Western Mining chief Hugh Morgan has criticised the former Minister for the Environment, Graham Richardson, and the scientific community for treating the greenhouse theory as fact rather than hypothesis.

Mr Morgan told an Australian Institute of Energy conference dinner on Monday [16th July] that he was concerned at the way in which some scientists and Senator Richardson expounded the theory as if it were truth.

1990 Anon. 1990. Public ‘unaware’ of alternative scientific theories on greenhouse effect. Canberra Times, 18 July, p. 6

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that having won the Federal election in March of that year, the Labour Party was having to follow through on promises to the environmentalists about a so-called “ecologically sustainable development process.” Hugh Morgan, who probably felt the Liberals and Nationals had been robbed, was predictably furious, and predictably spouting his climate denial bollocks, saying that there were alternative theories. This was a common proposal at the time and still is. Morgan’s “alternative theories” being possible somewhat like Kellyanne Conway’s “alternative facts”. 

There is that letter from Guy Callendar to (I think) Gilbert Plass about people being able to criticise theories, but it’s very hard to come up with a good one. And there is also the editorial in Climatic Change by John Eddy, where he cites Kipling’s poem, In the Neolithic Age – “nine and 60 ways to calculate the tribal lays and every one of them is right.” 

But that’s not what Morgan is saying. Morgan is saying that he’s gonna shop around until he finds a “theory” that allows us to keep burning coal and the oil and the gas and spitting on and shitting on the environmentalists. That’s what Morgan means by “alternative theories.”

What I think we can learn from this

Brittle old white men are bad for your health. And your planet’s health, at that.

What happened next

The ecologically sustainable development process did indeed start. Morgan kept funding denialist efforts including his consigliere Ray Evans and all the other Goon Squad types who have made the Australian response to climate change change so shameful and wasteful.

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

July 2, 1993. Denialists versus the facts, again.

Thirty years ago, on this day, July 2, 1993, the FT reported on a conference where a long-suffering climate expert tried to correct the childish bullshit of Richard Lindzen and Pat Michaels

Conference Report: Global warming – fact or claim? FT Energy Newsletters – Power Europe July 2, 1993 Section: Pg. 3 The hothouse spectre of global warming from emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has become a driving force in the environmental policies of many countries. Flohn versus Lindzen and Michaels.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the UNFCCC had been agreed the previous year, and ratification by enough member states to make it a “thing” was proceeding quicker than had been thought. Meanwhile, the IPCC was working on its next assessment report. And the denialists kept on going.

What I think we can learn from this

Idiots going to idiot.

The debating technique known as a Gish Gallop.

What happened next

Lindzen and Michaels kept being idiots.

Flohn died in 1997.

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

June 12, 2011 – Nazi smears used by denialists, obvs

Twelve years ago, on this day, June 12, 2011, Christopher Monckton is forced to apologise for throwing around swastika slurs in his “Big Footprint Is Green the new tyranny” rant.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Monckton was on one of his periodic tours of Australia, lapping up the attention that he was getting for his swivel eyed lunacy contesting the science of climate change with half baked nonsense. And unfortunately for him, he got high on his own supply, and went too far. With an allegation that Schellnhuber was a Nazi, or that Ross Garnaut was a Nazi. This then created a reputational issue for his sponsors and the Liberal Party, then led by Tony Abbott, and pressure was clearly applied, and Monckton apologised. For what that was worth, not that anyone particularly believed it. 

What I think we can learn from this

What we can learn is that culture warriors often get triggered, have peaks and go below you and go too fast, and then have to try to claw back their position. See, another example of this would be the Heartland Institute and its Unabomber billboards. 

Another would be with Oregon Petition and NAS saying “please don’t do this.” 

What happened next

At a climate conference in Melbourne, in July, the Lyndon LaRouche lunatics held up a noose and called Schellnhuber a Nazi. It was so classy.

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 IPCC

May 30, 1996 – Denialist goons smear scientist

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, May 30, 1996, Fred Seitz, energetic and lunatic denialist, tries to smear the IPCC, focussing on one particular scientist, Ben Santer

“This controversial issue also resulted in two letters (dated 30 May and 26 June), being sent to me, one from the Global Climate Coalition (John Schlaes) and the other from The Climate Council (Donald Pearlman). Copies of these were also sent to ten key members of the US Congress as well as the Advisor for Science and Technology and Assistant to the US President (John Gibson), and the Assistant Secretary of State (Eileen Clausen).”

Bolin 2007, page 130

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 365.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Global Climate Coalition was in full beast mode, trying to attack specifically Ben Santer. And as one of the authors of the lead authors of a particular chapter of the IPCC’s second assessment report (which said that there was evidence of a discernible impact of man’s activities on the climate). Almost 30 years later, it’s not really regarded as controversial. But this was the first statement of the IPCC to that effect. And the Global Climate Coalition was wanting to try to stop it or failing that, send a warning to other scientists. Let’s try and chill the debate or slow it down.

What I think we can learn from this

This is an age-honoured tactic, that you shoot messengers and hang the body on a gibbet with a sign that says “This is what happens if you open your big fucking mouth”. It was ever thus. And having it come from multiple sources, and be distributed to lots of people is also standard – makes a lot of noise, kicks up a lot of dust and dirt…

What happened next was that someone at the Wall Street Journal probably got a copy of that letter because a few days later, there was an editorial smearing Santer.

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.

See also –

Excerpt from Oreskes and Conway’s Merchants of Doubt https://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/the-relentless-attack-of-climate-scientist-ben-santer/

Fred Pearce interview with Ben Santer, 2010…

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/09/ipcc-report-author-data-openness

Categories
Agnotology Australia Denial

May 24, 2000- Australian denialist nutjobs have nutjob jamboree

Twenty three years ago, on this day, May 24, 2000, a bunch of silly old white men who were arm’s-length useful to powerful old white men had a meeting.

“Dinosaur business group is an embarrassment”

Australian Conservation Foundation, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace Australia

Media release – May 24, 2000

Australian environment groups have united in condemnation of a greenhouse meeting in Melbourne today, labelling it an embarrassment to Australia.

The meeting of the newly established “Lavoisier Group” is a move to discredit climate change science and bring together business groups in opposition to limiting greenhouse pollution.

These ‘climate sceptics’ fly in the face of the hundreds of global business players who gathered at the World Economic Forum’s Annual meeting in Davos this January. This business group resolved that climate change is the greatest challenge facing the world at the beginning of the century.

Speaking from the meeting today, Greenpeace Political Liaison Officer, Shane Rattenbury said; “This is an embarrassment for Australian industry. These people are five years behind the facts.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that climate denialists had, in Australia, been working to make sure that the Howard Government didn’t weaken in its opposition to Kyoto, and had succeeded in that. They wanted to pal around with each other under an official title. And so was born the Lavoisier Group. They had not been successful in getting any big corporates to sponsor them because they were a major reputational risk. By the mid 90s, Australian business had decided, with one or two very partial exceptions, that denying the science around climate change was simply not worth it. They would instead emphasise the costs to business via dodgy economic modelling from both within and beyond the Australian state.

What’s interesting here was that the launch of the Lavoisier Group did get the environmentalists outraged. This is an example of what has recently been called “owning the libs” at least in the United States.

What I think we can learn from this

Denialists are losers who ‘won’.

What happened next

Howard kept scuppering even the smallest and most inadequate responses to climate change, for another seven years.

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 Nations

May 20, 2010 – climategate keeps delivering for denialists

Thirteen years ago, on this day, May 20, 2010, a bunch of scientists had to waste more of their time answering questions about the theft of emails from a computer server.

2010 The scientists involved in the stolen climate emails from the University of East Anglia were exonerated by the British House of Commons and an international panel of climate experts, led by Lord Oxburgh. Even after these investigations found that nothing in the emails undercut the scientific evidence of climate change, attacks against scientists continue. Reports of harassment, death threats and legal challenges have created a hostile environment, making it challenging for actual data and scientific analyses to reach the public and policymakers.

On Thursday, May 20th, the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing to examine the intersection between climate science and the political process. This hearing, entitled “Climate Science in the Political Arena,” featured prominent climate scientists, some of whom have been the target of these attacks. This hearing explored scientists’ ability to present data and information that can guide global warming solutions in a sometimes fierce political landscape.

WHAT: Climate Science in the Political Arena

WHEN: Thursday May 20, 2010, 9:00 AM

WHERE: 1334 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC

OPENING STATEMENT: Chairman Edward J. Markey

WITNESSES:

Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences and Chair of the National Research Council

Dr. Mario Molina, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry and Professor, University of California at San Diego

Dr. Stephen Schneider, Professor, Stanford University

Dr. Ben Santer, Research Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Dr. William Happer, Professor, Princeton University

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 393.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 420 ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that shortly before the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference, somebody broke into the University of East Anglia servers, downloaded an enormous tranche of communications between various scientists, and then released these as the so-called Climate gate emails, trying to insinuate that there was some scandal. There had been significant fallout. And these hearings were politicians trying to show that they were concerned and figuring out what hadn’t hadn’t happened.  By then, though, and this is the beauty of a smear, the work is actually done. A lie can be halfway around the world, but for the truth has got its boots on.

What I think we can learn from this

Smearing climate scientists is easy. Nobody is able to live their life without making slips that can be magnified, exaggerated truths distorted, etc. 

What happened next? The climategate emails still get trotted out by denialists as proof of the malfeasance of climate scientists and the “corruption” of the science. 

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 Kingdom United States of America

May 19, 1997 – an oil company defects from thedenialists. Sort of.

Twenty six years ago, on this day, May 19, 1997 BP’s boss backs away from denial

“The overlapping and nesting of organizational fields implies that developments in one country or industry can disrupt the balance of forces elsewhere. For example, the landmark speech by British Petroleum’s Group Chief Executive, John Browne on 19 May 1997 represented a major fissure in the oil industry’s position, which bore implications for other industries in Europe and in the USA”

(Levy and Egan, 2003: 820) 

“There is now an effective consensus among the world’s leading scientists and serious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human influence on the climate and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature … it would be unwise and potentially dangerous to ignore the mounting concern.”

He added: “If we are to take responsibility for the future of our planet, then it falls to us to begin to take precautionary action now.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Global Climate Coalition had been getting rougher and rougher on the climate science, especially around the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, and that had made some businesses nervous about the reputational risk. In the UK the new Blair Government probably wasn’t going to be terribly impressed by BP’s continued membership of the GC. There had already been defections. And so Browne, bless him, decided to put a very, very positive spin, in every sense, on the issue. 

What I think we can learn from this

Capitalism is not a monolith. The fossil fuel sector is not a monolith. The oil industry is not a monolith. But we also learn, surely, that just because they’re not monolithic – on politics and presentation – doesn’t mean their actual strategies diverge very much. 

What happened next

And BP is, as an article published in The Guardian on the day that I’ve narrated this, still, of course, spending much more on hydrocarbons than renewables, because they are not an energy company. They are a fossil fuel company. And if they have convinced you otherwise, best maybe to take another look. 

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

May 18, 2006-  Denialist nutjobs do denialist nutjobbery. Again.

Seventeen  years ago, on this day, May 18, 2006, American denialists tried to confuse the public, again.

Following the release of the film, An Inconvenient Truth, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a group funded in part by ExxonMobil, launches an advertisement campaign welcoming increased carbon dioxide pollution. “Carbon dioxide: They call it pollution, we call it life,” the ad says. [Competitive Enterprise Institute, 5/2006; New York Times, 9/21/2006]

May 18, 2006-May 28, 2006: Global Warming Skeptic Organization Launches Pro- Greenhouse Gas Advertising Campaign

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=CEIadverts200605#CEIadverts20060

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth was coming out, and therefore the denialists wanted to be able to get journalists to quote “an opposing view” for what is laughably called “balance.” And so they reused their “greening Earth co2 is plant food” claim because it’s simple, and seems commonsensical. 

What I think we can learn from this

And this is part of the manipulation of the media that had already been identified by Boykoff and Boykoff in 2004 – “Balance as Bias”. This is a classic example of the way that cashed-up and well-connected entities can game the system. And of course, if their views aren’t quoted, people can then flak the journalist and say “classic liberal censorship,” “echo chamber,” et cetera. So it’s a win win. 

What happened next

The CEI kept doing this bullshit, without shame, without remorse, because that’s who these people are.

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

May 10, 1997 – Murdoch rag in denialist shocker 

Twenty six years ago, on this day, May 10, 1997, The Australlian gave more oxygen to a frankly idiotic (I can say it because he’s now safely dead) scientist called Brian O’Brien.

SCIENTISTS continue to make dire predictions about the effect of greenhouse gases despite clear evidence the planet will not be as badly affected as first thought, a leading atmospheric scientist says. [really?]

Former Nasa space scientist Dr Brian O’Brien said self-interested scientists and conservation groups propped up the “greenhouse industry” with exaggerated claims in order to preserve their respective patches..

Lunn, S. 1997. Greens let off gas over greenhouse. The Australian, 10 May, p.45

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian government of John Howard had launched a diplomatic offensive against Australia having to take on any actual reduction commitments at the upcoming Kyoto negotiations in December. Whether O’Brien had been asked or was freelancing here is hard to tell but the denialist effort to say that climate change was overblown fits in the context of trying to reduce the political cost of being a dick.

O’Brien is now dead so I can say what I think which is that he was a foolish overconfident old man when the climate issue took hold and he enjoyed the notoriety of being a denialist and a dressed up his b******* and leaned heavily on his background with NASA.

What I think we can learn from this

We have to see specific denialist outbreaks against the political environment of the time and not just as symptoms of of old white male derangement.

What happened next

The denial coalesced around something called The Lavoisier Group by 2000. It kept the flame of climate denial alive until 2007/8, when other groups got heavily involved as well.

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

May 8, 2015 – denialist denies in delusional denialist newspaper

On this day eight years ago, May 8, 2015, Maurice Newman (the guy who had been ABC chair and given a particularly stupid speech) peddled his delusions in a delusional “news”paper

“In an article in The Australian on May 8, 2015, Maurice Newman, chairman of the Prime Minister’s business advisory council, said that the United Nations is behind the global warming hoax. The real agenda of the UN “is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook,” Newman said. “This is not about facts or logic,” he added. “It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.” 

James Rodgers: Can Scientists be wrong?

You can read it in all its crapulent glory here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

These sorts of “secret UN plot” things have been around for yonks, partly because, well, yes, specific capitalist interests DID fund early work into conservation and environmental limits. That doesn’t mean it’s all made up. But that’s too much for Newman and Lyndon Larouche and that crowd to get their heads around.

What we can learn

You can be quite successful and powerful in this society and at the same time be dumb as a rock. All you need is the right skin colour, the right school, a penis and bish bosh, you’re in…


What happened next

Further embarrassments. And emissions. Which is embarrassing in itself, if you want the “sapiens” in homo sapiens to mean anything.

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