Category: Science

Categories
Denial Science Scientists United States of America

February 10, 2006 – James Hansen on science, politics and tropical storms…

Twenty years ago, on this day, February 10, 2006

“On February 10, 2006, the Friday of the week that George Deutsch resigned, Jim spoke at a conference on politics and science, sponsored by the New School for Social Research in Manhattan. (He was added at the last minute on account of his recent notoriety.) IN a talk derived from the Keeling talk, which was now about two months old, he decided to add a brief discussion of tropical storms, because the topic was “especially relevant to this conference.”

See these two pages from Mark Bowen’s Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming.

2006 Hansen at conference on science and politics at New School for Social Research (Bowen Censoring Science page 143)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Hansen had been abused, ignored, sidelined in 1989 by the George HW Bush administration, and had basically gone back to the lab (that’s no criticism of the man, btw).

The specific context was that by 2006 the climate issue was heating up again – the Kyoto Protocol had been ratified (thanks, Russia) – so the international negotiations were “back on”, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme was underway, and Al Gore’s film was about to come out.
Last summer (2005) Hurricane Katrina had hit New Orleans, with thousands dead.

What I think we can learn from this is that the Bush regime was full of assholes.

What happened next: Hansen started getting arrested at protests about coal plants and pipelines, and has kept on with 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.

See this from 2008

James Hansen and Mark Bowen on Censored Science : NPR

Also on this day: 

February 10, 1995 – Faulkner folds on carbon tax – doesn’t have the numbers in Cabinet

February 10, 2006 – The Australian Conservation Foundation tries to get governments to take climate seriously… – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Science United Kingdom

February 5,  1980 – the Met Office beavers away…

Forty six  years ago, on this day, February 5 1980 the UK Met Office was beavering away at the carbon dioxide problem.

Met Office meeting abt C02 BJ dash 336 dash 2 (138).JPG        5/2/1980        PR Rowntree        Summary of conclusions reached during discussion of CO2 experiments.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Met Office had been aware of the idea of carbon dioxide build-up as a long-term warming influence since 1953 at the absolute latest (and in fact, all the way back to Arrhenius in 1895).

The specific context was that American scientists and politicians had been warming (see what I did there?) to the issue for a while.  The Met Office had, very reluctantly (thanks to its boss, John Mason) started scientific work in 1976, putting one of their brightest young research scientists on the case, with others.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have known about this problem for a very very long time.

What happened next:  Once Mason retired and was replaced by John Houghton, in 1983, the Met Office began to play a stronger and more useful role in investigating climate change, alongside the UEA Climatic Research Unit.

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: 

 February 5, 1986 – Thomas Sankara Imperialism is the arsonist of our forests and savannas  – All Our Yesterdays

February 5, 1992 – Liberal leader Hewson snubs the Australian  Conservation Foundation

February 5, 1993 – Space Based Energy experiment takes place

February 5, 2007 – Australian Prime Minister trolled by senior journalist

Categories
Science Scientists United Kingdom United States of America

January 28, 1990 –  Stephen Schneider and the dirty crystal ball.

Thirty six years ago, on this day, January 28th, 1990.

Another reviewer of the Gribbin book, William Goulding (The Sunday Times, 28 January, 1990), quotes the late climate scientist and climate science communicator Stephen Schneider as saying: “scientific predictions are like ‘trying to gaze into a dirty crystal ball. By taking time to clean the glass you can get a better picture; but at some point it is necessary to decide that the picture is good enough to alert policy makers and the general public to the hazards ahead. That point has certainly been reached with studies of the greenhouse effect and the prospect of rising sea levels in particular.’” Unfortunately, that point seems to be forever receding into the future… 

https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2018/08/11/groundhog-day-in-the-hothouse

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been measuring the impact of human activities, whether it was on air pollution, water pollution, ozone depletion, you name it, and had been trying to figure out how to raise the alarm without being called alarmist, and pondering where, when and how to speak out. 

So you have the famous Shelly Rowland quote 

“What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?”

Stephen Schneider was among them. In 1971 famously, he had co-authored a paper that got taken up as a when’s the new ice age happening, kind of thing to the dismay of some of his colleagues. I think it’s fair to say that Schneider leaned in. In 1976 he published the Genesis Strategy, He’d been on Johnny Carson (TV show). See also his efforts around the First World Climate Conference (Science as a contact sport)

The specific context was that the IPCC’s first assessment report was due out. (The IPCC had had its first meeting in November 1988). Meanwhile negotiations were clearly at some point going to begin for an international climate treaty. So here is Schneider, who was a very smart man, very thoughtful, trying to figure out when you pull the big lever. 

You can also see him tackling the same issues about 10 years prior, in a 1979 Panorama video. I would love to know when this video was; I haven’t been able to track it down.

Stephen Schneider in 1979

What I think we can learn from this is that scientists get flattened by industry and their paid attack dogs (and also by useful idiots).

What happened next

Schneider kept on trucking – his death was a huge huge loss

See also this from July 14 1988 Los Angeles Times –

Ozone Warning : He Sounded Alarm, Paid Heavy Price – Los Angeles Times

The interest was gratifying but more than a little ironic. “They won’t admit it but this means some kind of ban has been lifted,” Rowland said.

For as Rowland and others recount it, ever since 1974, when he and UCI postdoctoral fellow Mario Molina first theorized that the Earth’s protective ozone layer was being damaged by synthetic chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), Rowland has paid a price for his ideas.

In part, that’s because Rowland didn’t just make his discovery, write up the results and quietly return to his lab.

Instead, shocked by the implications of his research, he took an unusual public stance–doggedly telling reporters, Congress, half a dozen state legislatures, and just about anyone who seemed interested that ozone loss could lead to skin cancer and catastrophic climatic change. And, again and again for more than a decade, he urged that CFCs be banned.

In doing so, Rowland took on a $28-billion-a-year industry whose products, ranging from home insulating materials to solvents for electronic equipment, have become an essential part of modern life.

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: 

January 28, 1969 – Santa Barbara Oil spill

January 28, 1993 – Parliament protest – “Wake Up, the World is Dying” – Guest Post by Hugh Warwick

January 28, 2013 – Doomed “Green Deal” home insulation scheme launched in the UK

Categories
Science

January 23, 2001 – alarming predictions

Twenty five  years ago, on this day, January 23rd, 2001, 

World temperatures may increase by as much as six degrees Celsius over the next century, leading climate change scientists say in an alarming report that adds new urgency to the warnings on global warming.

The projected increase, which would be the most rapid temperature change in the past 10,000 years, is expected to push sea levels up by nearly a metre, threatening tens of millions of people, and generate more floods, droughts and fires.

The report found that the 1990s were the hottest decade since instrument records were first taken in 1861 and that 1998 was the hottest year. And for the first time scientists agreed that the warming is mostly due to human activity.

The gloomy prognosis was released in Shanghai yesterday by the respected Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a joint project of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation.

International Climate Change Taskforce report

2001 Schauble, J. 2001. Six Degrees Hotter: Global Climate Alarm Bells Ring Louder. Sydney Morning Herald, 23 January, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been warning about CO2 build up causing warming in the 20th century of significant proportion since – well, you can say Calendar in 1938 but I really think Gilbert Plass in 1953 is the point at which people start to pay attention, (some attention). And by the late 1970s as you’ll see from the CO2 Newsletter, The warnings were firm, firm enough to alarm scientists and some politicians.

The IPCC was created to provide, well, to provide scientific imprimatur, but also to make sure that the independent scientists didn’t get paid too much attention, as they had over ozone. 

The specific context was that by 2001 the IPCC Third Assessment Report was coming out.  T

What I think we can learn from this is that we should remember is that scientists have to cope with the fact that journalists will either misunderstand the research because it’s complex and new,, or they will overstate it and “sex up the dossier” in search of a bigger, bolder headline, and then the scientist catches it in the neck for what the journalist wrote. You also get the need for the media system to just go to extremes. And the examples I’d use from 1988 are Steven Schneider being disinvited because he wasn’t alarmist enough. And also a hack said to Robyn Williams of the ABC Science Show “oh, now we’ll need the backlash.”

What happened next

That trouble ahead! We kept burning fossil fuels, and CO2 kept accumulating in the atmosphere. And, you know, the rest,

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: 

January 23, 1957 – New Zealand scientist warns about consequences of carbon dioxide build-up  

January 23, 1992 – denialist bullshit in the Fin

January 23, 1995 – The Larsen B starts to break up with us.. (Ice, Ice, baby)

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

January 6th, 1982 – AAAS meeting warns about carbon dioxide build-up

On this day 43 years ago, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (created 1848) held its annual meeting, this time in Washington DC.  The climatologists held panels within that.

They were pretty blunt about what was on the way.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was the AAAS had been around for a long long time. By the late 1960s its annual gatherings were a site for scientific discussion of what was coming (see here and here).

The specific context was by the late 1970s the climate scientists were beginning to get sure of the eventual result of tipping huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (though they varied on time frames). AAAS was involved.

Efforts to get policymakers interested had had some success, but it all fell in a heap after the Reagan Administration came in in January 1981.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have known for a long time. This. Was. Not. A. State. Secret.

[LINK]

What happened next. The climate stuff at the AAAS meeting was covered in newspapers around the US, sometimes featuring quite prominently. The scientific work continued. And continued.

1988 was the pivotal year. [LINK]

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

January 6, 1883 – The New York Times reports on the Atmosphere

January 6, 1989 – “Cloud-Radiative Forcing and Climate: Results from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment” 

January 6, 1995 –  Australian business interests battle a carbon tax with “nobody else is acting” argument

Categories
Denial Science Scientists

January 5th, 2006 – James Hansen interviewed on Sixty Minutes

On this day 20 years ago, climate scientist James Hansen, being censored and bullied left right and centre by Bush administration appointees, breaks a sixteen year silence with the media and says yes to a request to appear on the CBS show Sixty Minutes.

Jim spent the morning of the first interview, January 5, 2006, in his apartment, completing his email about ethics to Einaudi and Leshin. He remembers feeling nervous as he walked the few blocks to his office for the filming. “I wondered if I shouldn’t just talk about the science, but then I decided, ‘To hell with this. This has got to be illegal.’ I would be blunt and not hold anything back.”

Source –  Bowen Censoring Science p. 55

and

“As a government scientist, James Hansen is taking a risk. He says there are things the White House doesn’t want you to hear but he’s going to say them anyway. Hansen is arguably the world’s leading researcher on global warming. He’s the head of NASA’s top institute studying the climate. This imminent scientist says that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science. Scott Pelley reports.”

[source]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that governments, at the behest of the powerful interests that either control them or “influence them significantly” (depends on the facts, and also the perspective of the commentator!), have always silenced inconvenient voices – “who will rid me of this troublesome priest” etc etc. 

The specific context was that James Hansen had first felt the ire of a Republican administration in 1981 when the front page story on the New York Times in August resulted in already-issued grant funding being pulled from GISS. Hansen kickstarted climate concern with his June 23 1988 testimony to Congress. He found himself mysteriously not invited to various important policy meetings in the following years, and his testimony to Congress subtly altered/suppressed. By 2006 the Bush Jnr administration was fighting a rear-guard action, since the Kyoto PRotocol had finally been ratified by enough nations the previous year to become “law” (well, lore, really), and negotiations for a successor were underway.  The censorship and harassment of Hansen, laid out in Bowen’s book, was part of that.

What I think we can learn from this is that the powerful like to stay powerful, and suppress voices that are telling stark truths, as best they can.

What happened next Hansen retired, and started getting arrested.

Hansen is still working as a scientist and the stuff he is saying is frankly terrifying. I am glad I am closer to the grave than the cradle, because there are some shitstorms on their way.

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

Bowen, M. 2008. Censoring Science: Inside The Political Attack On Dr. James Hansen And The Truth Of Global Warming.

January 5, 1973 –  An academic article about the Arctic emerges from the Met Office

January 5, 1989 – National Academy of Science tries to chivvy Bush.

January 5, 1995 – Victorian premier comes out against carbon tax – All Our Yesterdays

January 5, 2006 – strategic hand-wringing about “Our Drowning Neighbours”

Categories
Science Scientists

December 29, 1959 – plenty of room at the bottom

Sixty six years ago, on this day, December 29th, 1959,

Physicist Richard Feynman gives a speech entitled “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom”, which is regarded as the birth of nanotechnology.

“”There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom: An Invitation to Enter a New Field of Physics” was a lecture given by physicist Richard Feynman at the annual American Physical Society meeting at Caltech on December 29, 1959.[1] Feynman considered the possibility of direct manipulation of individual atoms as a more robust form of synthetic chemistry than those used at the time. Versions of the talk were reprinted in a few popular magazines, but it went largely unnoticed until the 1980s.

The title references the popular quote “There is always room at the top.” attributed to Daniel Webster (who is thought to have said this phrase in response to warnings against becoming a lawyer, which was seen as an oversaturated field in the 19th century).”

There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom – Wikipedia

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 316ppm. 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 there were lots of smart people knocking around in the 1950s. Lots of funding for them to, within the sprawling empire that was the American military-industrial complex.

The specific context was Feynman was damn smart (once you’re that stratospheric, I am not sure there’s much point in distinguishing between von Neumann etc etc).

What I think we can learn from this – I need to read more Feynman, and more about Feynman.

What happened next? Feynman kept on being absurdly smart. In one of his memoirs he talks about, during the Challenger investigation, talking to engineers on the ground and finding out they were way smarter than their bosses. Obvs.


Also, he dropped the rubber o-ring in the ice water. Now that is showmanship…

The Challenger Disaster – Richard Feynman

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: 

December 29, 1969 – AAAS symposium on “Climate and Man”

December 29, 1972 – Schneider meets Sullivan

December 29, 1995 – Sydney Morning Herald points out year has been hottest yet…

December 29, 1999 – Russian sub commander turned eco-whistleblower is acquitted.

Categories
Academia Science Scientists

 December 28  – Carl Rossby (1896) and Jonny von Neumann (1903) born

A hundred and twenty plus years ago, on this day, December 28th, 1896/1903

Carl-Gustaf Rossby December 28, 1898 – August 19, 1957

Carl-Gustaf Rossby – Wikipedia

Swedish-American meteorologist who first explained the large-scale motions of the atmosphere in terms of fluid mechanics. His work contributed to developing meteorology as a science. Rossby first theorized about the existence of the jet stream in 1939, and that it governs the easterly movement of most weather. U.S. Army Air Corps pilots flying B-29 bombing missions across the Pacific Ocean during World War II proved the jet stream’s existence. The pilots found that when they flew from east to west, they experienced slower arrival times and fuel shortage problems. When flying from west to east, however, they found the opposite to be true. Rossby created mathematical models (Rossby equations) for computerized weather prediction (1950).

and

John von Neumann Born 28 Dec 1903; died 8 Feb 1957 

Hungarian-American mathematician who made important contributions in quantum physics, logic, meteorology, and computer science. He invented game theory, the branch of mathematics that analyses strategy and is now widely employed for military and economic purposes. During WW II, he studied the implosion method for bringing nuclear fuel to explosion and he participated in the development of the hydrogen bomb. He also set quantum theory upon a rigorous mathematical basis. In computer theory, von Neumann did much of the pioneering work in logical design, in the problem of obtaining reliable answers from a machine with unreliable components, the function of “memory,” and machine imitation of “randomness.”[Image left: Von Neumann with ENIAC computer.]

 John von Neumann: The Scientific Genius Who Pioneered…, by Norman MacRae. – book suggestion.

 Von Neumann is also quoted in Fortune in 1955 “Can We Survive Technology?” (spoiler – probably not)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 295-297ppm. 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 these were two seriously smart human beings.

The specific context was Rossby was born the same year Arrhenius’s paper on carbon dioxide build-up was published, lol.

What I think we can learn from this – I do wish von Neumann had lasted a bit longer – I think he might have taken more interest in CO2 build-up. But this is idle speculation and dreaming that a white saviour might have saved us. Nowt was going to save us.

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: 

December 28, 1978 – fly the plane. Don’t keep tapping the fuel light.

December 28, 1994 – Australian Financial Review says “say yes to Tradeable Emissions Quotas”

December 28, 2002 –  Renewable Energy vs John Howard, round 55ish… –

Categories
Science Scientists Sweden

December 24, 1894 – Arrhenius starts work…

One hundred and thirty one years ago, on this day, December 24th, 1894,

Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius, in the midst of a gruesome divorce, started work on his  climate model, Dec 24 1894 ( source for the date is Elizabeth Kolbert “H is for Hope” p12)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 295ppm. 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 Arrhenius was aware of Tyndall’s work on “carbonic acid” in the atmosphere (but not Eunice Foote’s).

The specific context was – he was going through a messy and painful divorce and needed a Project to Distract Himself.

What I think we can learn from this – scientists make sacrifices etc.

What happened next was that Arrhenius published the work. He later got a Nobel Prize for chemistry (for other discoveries).

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: 

December 24, 1895 – Arrhenius explains the work that went in… 

December 24, 1968 – “Earthrise” photo

December 24, 1990 – Australia as renewable energy superpower

Categories
Science United States of America

December 22, 2010 – James Hansen and Bill McKibben and the loaded dice…

Fifteen years ago, on this day, December 22nd, 2010,

“What we see happening with new record temperatures, both warm and cold, is in good agreement with what we predicted in the 1980s when I testified to Congress about the expected effect of global warming. I used coloured dice then to emphasize that global warming would cause the climate dice to be ‘loaded’—for risk of more extreme weather.”

James Hansen, Director, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, interview with Bill McKibben, 22 December 2010

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. 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 Hansen has been banging on about carbon dioxide build-up for 50 years. His first foray into the world beyond science on this was in 1981. McKibben wrote a series of essays for the New Yorker that was then published as a book “The End of Nature”

The specific context was – that the UNFCCC conference in Copenhagen had been a farce, and it was clear things were gonna get out of hand.

What I think we can learn from this – being smart and right isn’t enough.

What happened next – Hansen and McKibben have gone on being smart and right.

The emissions have kept climbing. Who knows, maybe solar will reduce our energy emissions markedly. Who knows…

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: 

December 22, 1759 – “What have ye done?”

December 22, 1975 – “Scientist Warns of Great Floods if Earth’s Heat Rises” (surely “when”?)

December 22, 1978 – UK Energy Department chief scientist worries about CO2 levels and pressure to reduce them…

December 22, 1988 – Chico Mendes murdered

December 22, 1999 – Australian population growth and carbon reductions – not so easy…