The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that journalists had been writing these sorts of stories for a long time; since the 60s, really, (since the 50s, but it was speculation). But from the late 60s, speculation was beginning to harden up.
The specific context was that scientifically, there had been the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in January of 1982 in Washington, DC. Hanson and Flohn, nd other people had made the statements they did, so maybe that helped nudge the Chicago Trib writer, Richard Kotulak (who is still alive).
What I think we can learn from this is that there were switched-on journalists in 1982 which is 44 years ago, and switched-on readers. We knew plenty.
What happened next The carbon dioxide problem had another moment in late 1983, but it didn’t really become front page news again until 1988 thanks to hard “problem entrepreneur” work by dedicated 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.
On this day 25 years ago, March 20, 2000 a gift to the denialists was given,
Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.” Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 370ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that the relationship between media and scientists has been one of “frenemies” for decades, far beyond climate science.
The specific context was that climate change was now steady “background noise”, and there was a flare up in coverage thanks to the Bush administration preparing to pull out of Kyoto.
What we learn? Well, here’s a journo from the same paper.
Headlines are meant to draw people into a story and have to conform to quite rigid restrictions on space in the printed medium – where this headline first appeared. They are meant to be accurate, but they can never do full justice to the nuances of reporting. This is even more true when it comes to the more complex nuances of science. The headline in this case is not what the story itself said, as Dr Viner made clear. The story was about the frequency of snowfalls, and how “snow is starting to disappear from our lives”, which the it stated clearly.
A more accurate headline would be something like: “Snowfalls are becoming less frequent in our little corner of the world but that doesn’t necessarily mean that snow will disappear from our lives completely and forever.” Unfortunately, any sub-editor who would suggest such a tediously long headline is unlikely to last very long.
“Kasherman quickly resumed publishing the Public Press, and set his sights on Mayor Marvin L. Kline, a Republican, whom he accused of allowing gangsters to run rampant. The December 1944 issue of the “Public Press” featured the headline “Kline Administration Most Corrupt Regime in the History of the City.” A month later, on the night of Jan. 22, 1945, Kasherman was ambushed after eating dinner with a friend and shot dead on a sidewalk at 15th and Chicago avenues in Minneapolis. His death made the front pages of newspapers across the Twin Cities, but few in the city were surprised when the police investigation quickly petered out…”
Journalists who don’t get the memo about afflicting the poor and comforting the rich sometimes need reminders of who is in charge….
(How) does it connect to climate change?
Most journalists are basically mostly-house-trained lapdogs. Occasionally they are allowed to nibble a finger to make themselves feel Independent. But pretty much a wing of the public relations industry…
What happened next
How does it help us understand the world?
Know that what you are seeing is, well, filtered.
How does it help us act in the world?
“All the adverts fit to print, all the news printed to fit” etc etc.
The source that it comes from, if necessary,
Xxx
The other things that you could read about this or watch
Sixty four years ago, on this day, October 9th, 1961, the Daily Mirror crusaded, about other animals besides the hairless murder apes
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 317ppm. 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 nature documentaries were having to start noticing there was trouble ahead.
What I think we can learn from this is that we knew what we were doing, by commission or omission. Oh 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.
Fifty two years ago, on this day, December 29th, 1972,
In Baltimore in December 1972 I gave a talk on the issue of human weather control to the annual convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). AAAS meetings are internationally known because they bring together research scientists and policy makers to discuss the societal implications of new knowledge…. After speaking for half an hour or so, on how various kinds of human activities could change the climate, I concluded that, unfortunately, only a relatively few people were aware of the possibilities. I then quipped: “Nowadays, everybody is doing something with the weather, but nobody is talking about it.”
At the front of the audience, a distinguished-looking gentleman was taking notes: he turned out to be the doyen of all science writers, Walter Sullivan of the New York Times….
Sullivan, W. 1972. Goals for US Urged on Weather Control. New York Times, Dec 29, p.50.
(Schneider, 1989: 200)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Stephen Schneider is perhaps being a little naive here, because he’d already made headlines the previous year, thanks to a paper that he had co-written that had talked about the possibility of an ice age thanks to all the dust and smoke that was being put up. That paper turned out to be wrong and was used as a club by denialists to hit Schneider over the head with it for the rest of his life. Because that’s who they are. As for Sullivan, he had been aware of the CO2 possibility at the latest 1961 but much more likely, by 1957; he had after all written a book about the International Geophysical Year.
What we learn is that by the early 1970s carbon dioxide buildup as a problem was getting more attention. There had been an article earlier the same year in May I want to say 1972 in The New York Times. There was of course by now, the United Nations Environment Program setting up shop.
What happened next: The carbon dioxide build-up issue kept getting random reports all through the 1970s. Only in 1988 did it finally punch through.
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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 423.7ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the denialists had been able to get lots of their bullshit published in mainstream outlets, not on the basis of, you know, peer reviewed science or anything credible, but simply by using (or abusing if you want) the idea that the media has to show “both sides.” This is aside from the fact of who owns the media and what their long-term interests or short term interests are. And here we have a paper which lays that out by Boykoff and Boykoff. A good paper, you should read it. Unfortunately, it’s still largely relevant. And if you’re like me, he went through the naughties and teens writing to the BBC complaining about all the space given to nutjob denialists and getting the form response about BBCs responsibility for impartiality and giving both sides of an argument and then you would write back and say you don’t give Holocaust deniers equal billing. And then they wouldn’t reply to that. At least some of these people must have known better, but consider themselves blameless. Everyone is blameless. So it’s someone else’s fault.
What I think we can learn from this is that “our” systems of thought and truthiness have been successfully hacked.
What happened next: The denialists kept using the argument around impartiality and then complaining about censorship, etc. Some media outlets banned denialist comments from under the line. But on the whole, they didn’t. And the thing about climate change is it enrages so many people. And part of the reason it enrages is that humans are not on top. And another part for a lot of them is that they kind of by now know that they backed the wrong horse. And they hate the fact that the hippies were right and that they were wrong.
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.
Twenty-seven years ago, on this day, October 3rd, 1997, the American cable news network CNN tells an “anti-Kyoto” coalition it won’t run their ads,
Of course, it later recants.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that CNN had been owned until the year before by Ted Turner, who fancied himself as the Ecowarrior. And it had been taking money from fossil fuel lobbyists, like the Global Climate Coalition, which was trying to weaken public support for the Kyoto Protocol.
What we learn is that corporations, or individuals within corporations may think that they have spines, but if they get between a source of profit, and the owners of the company, then other members of the corporation, whether it’s publicly or privately owned, will have something else to say. And this was very beautifully put in Julian Rathbone’s eco thriller, The Euro killers, in the late 70s. And if we all read a bit more eco-thriller fiction, we would be less surprised by life, perhaps.
What happened next, CNN did a u-turn. The Global Climate Coalition kept pressing and succeeded. And then in 2002, decided to shut up shop because big members were defecting. And anyway, their work was done. And since then, we’ve had other outfits performing elements of the same function. So the Cooler Heads Coalition set up in 2007, which is mostly now sort of information sharing and spine stiffening for members of Congress and so forth.
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.
One hundred and seventeen years ago, on this day, October 28, 1906, the press release was “born”“According to public relations lore, the press release was born following a train wreck on October 28, 1906, in Atlantic City, N.J., that left more than 50 people dead.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 299ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there kept being these sorts of disasters and events. Containing and corralling the media, which was a bit more independent and rambunctious perhaps, than it is now, was time-consuming and not always successful. So a press release is an inspired idea. Because it is a labour-saving device, which means that you don’t have to say the same thing over and over again. But also, you get to frame the narrative with some good – what are now called – “sound-bites.”
What I think we can learn from this is the practice of corporate control and government control, via press releases at least, goes back a long way. For more about this, see Alex Carey – “Taking the Risk out of Democracy.”
What happened next
Perhaps someone has charted the growth of press releases, but basically the thing to come back to understand is most of what you read in the world in day-to-day journalism is from press releases that have been put out, the journalist has either changed it (or not changed it), and at most got some react quotes from someone, and then cobbled a story together. But this is the equivalent in information terms of endlessly eating fries or Big Macs. It’s not nourishing. So what you need is long form journalism from specialists, but who has the time for that? It costs money. So the daily press enters a death spiral, when an informed citizenry is essential…
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.
Forty seven years ago, on this day, September 13, 1976, a major US news network did a story on climate change.
“On September 13, 1976, ABC’s Jules Bergman did a two minute 10 second story on a National Academy of Sciences committee report on the damage done by fluorocarbons (from aerosol spray cans) to the ozone layer of the earth’s atmosphere. Like most fluorocarbon/ ozone stories, this one cited the medical dangers of increased skin cancers, but in this case, the committee said that the most dangerous result might be a warming of the earth’s poles.”
Sachsman, 2000 The Role of Mass Media in Shaping Perceptions and Awareness of Environmental Issues
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that journalists were, by 1976. very sensitised to the climate issue. There was the prolonged drought in the United Kingdom. Stephen Schneider had released “the Genesis Strategy,” and had made various appearances on the Johnny Carson Show. So getting the climate issue into a discussion of ozone was not that much of a stretch.
What I think we can learn from this is that decent journalists will give you a tolerably accurate version of the truth. You may need to reframe some of the factoids, but especially if it’s the business press, you will more or less be able to figure what’s going on. For all the good it will do you.
We have known for 50 years that there was serious trouble ahead – longer in fact, but really from the early mid 70s both the theory and the evidence were coming together… And here we are.
What happened next
In 1977 the National Academy of Science released its report. George Brown managed to Shepherd the climate protection act or whatever it was called into law Carter signed this time next year ear and there was a flurry of newspaper articles and presumably television reports about the dangers of continuing to rely on coal and here we 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.
Thirteen years ago, on this day, March 10, 2010, Maurice Newman, a neoliberal warrior from the 1970s onwards, gave a climate denial speech to senior ABC staff. Prime Minister John Howard had appointed him as chair in January 2007.
In a speech to senior ABC staff on 10 March 2010 he said climate change was an example of “group-think”. According to an ABC PM account of the speech: “Contrary views had not been tolerated, and those who expressed them had been labelled and mocked. Mr Newman has doubts about climate change himself and says he’s waiting for proof either way.”
(wikipedia Maurice Newman)
and
“The media hasn’t been good at picking these things up and it’s really been the question of what is conventional wisdom and consensus rather than listening perhaps to other points of view that may be sceptical.
“And I brought in as well in that vain what’s been going on in climate change where there’s been clearly a point of view which has been prevailing in the mainstream media, and the fact that again perhaps consensus and conventional wisdom may not always stand us in good stead.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
People like Maurice Newman, long time neoliberal soldier, want to be within the commanding organisations such as universities and media, for obvious reasons. And he did what he (was) set out to do….
What I think we can learn from this
What’s interesting, what we can learn is that these terms like “groupthink” gets thrown around as if there’s some sort of profound statement. And they’re a shortcut for avoiding actually engaging with the fact that the science around the basics of climate change has been settled for a very long time. Unable to combat that. Newman and his ilk resort to name-calling and pseudo profound smears. But it’s quite effective…
What happened next
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.”
The ABC has continued to be a site of struggle, and has been almost entirely hollowed out by the neoliberals and their chums. You can always track individual journalists and stack the board with non entities and lackeys and if they persist in being independent, reduce their funding until they get the message.
See also organisational decay.
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...
