Category: Scientists

Categories
Australia Scientists

October 6, 2004 – Pearman quits…

Twenty two years ago, on this day, October 6th, 2004,

Quitting your job may not be the definition of a splurge, but for Dr Graeme Pearman, until last year head of the division of atmospheric research at the CSIRO, that’s what it took for him to see more of his grandchildren.

Vincent, P. 2004. How does Dr Graeme Pearman spoil himself? Sydney Morning Herald, October 6, p. 4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 378ppm. As of 2026, 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 Graham Pearman had been counting carbon since the early 1970s. He had attended two pivotal scientific meetings in 1977, in Miami Beach, and then Germany, and had returned to Australia to try to inform and galvanise scientists. Pearman had also been instrumental in the 1980 symposium. Pearman had organised the 1987 planning for greenhouse conference, and briefed Keating’s cabinet in 1994. Anyway, there’s only so much bullshit a man can take, and Pearman had had his fill by this point. 

The specific context was the Howard government’s endless climate criminality can wear a man down.

What I think we can learn from this is that our politicians are not fit for purpose (if the purpose is a habitable planet. If it’s short-term comfort and profit for a thin sliver of the population, then they’re great).

What happened next is that there are scientists Jim Hansen, Stephen Schneider, Kevin Anderson, plenty of others, I mean hundreds of others who have spent their lives trying to sound the warning. And their warnings have fallen on largely willfully deaf ears. That is less to do with the scientists and the facts and more to do with greed, stupidity, and organised enforced ignorance. And the weakness of civil society.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

October 6, 1988 – coal lobby says greenhouse effect “greatly exaggerated”

October 6, 1989 – Hawke Government given climate heads up by top scientist – All Our Yesterdays

October 6, 1997 – Australia says nope to uniform emissions 5% cut. Assholes. – All Our Yesterdays

October 6, 2005 – carbon capture is doable… – All Our Yesterdays

October 6, 2008 – “Quit Coal” Greenpeace boards ships – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Scientists

October 5, 1989 – Donella Meadows “The Costs of the Greenhouse Effect will be Unpayable”

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, October 5th, 1989,

The Costs of the Greenhouse Effect will be Unpayable

By Donella Meadows

The Costs of the Greenhouse Effect will be Unpayable

–October 5, 1989–

Forward-thinking people are preparing for the greenhouse effect. Barge companies on the Mississippi are acquiring railroads in case the river becomes permanently unnavigable. Planners of Boston’s sewage treatment system are taking into account a sea-level rise from global warming. The Weyerhaeuser company is planting drought-resistant trees. The Dutch are raising their dikes.

Either this behavior is certifiably crazy, or it’s an apt assessment of the craziness of the human race as a whole — a reasoned bet that we will be stupid enough to let the greenhouse effect happen, instead of stopping it.

I’m not that much of a pessimist. I think we’re rational animals, at least when it comes to economics. The economics of the greenhouse effect are quite clear. We can’t afford it.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. As of 2026, 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 greenhouse issue had exploded onto the public agenda in late ‘88, and then ‘89 you couldn’t move but for it.

The specific context was that Donella Meadows knew what she was talking about. She’d been co-author on The Limits to Growth. 

What I think we can learn from this is that Meadows was right and Meadows was pointing out what the cost would be if we acted and what the cost would be if we didn’t act.

What happened next. We did not act. Meadows died far too young in 2001. And the emissions kept climbing, the concentrations kept climbing. 

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

October 5, 1988 – Vice Presidential Debate and ‘the Greenhouse Effect’ – All Our Yesterdays

October 5, 1989 – Enviro minister “Richo” warns Hawkie to save “Kakadu”

October 5, 1992 – Ignoreland hits the airwaves. #Neoliberalism – All Our Yesterdays

October 5, 2006 – Greenpeace sues Blair Government over shonky energy “consultation”
October 5, 2016 – “Energy ministers urged…” again
Categories
Science Scientists United Kingdom

 September 8, 1966 – John Houghton on Carbon Dioxide….

Sixty years ago, on this day, September 8, 1966, the Guardian reports on the latest meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science….

The Guardian (London, Greater London, England) · Thu, 8 Sept 1966 ·

Page 2

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 321ppm. As of 2026, 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 from the early 1950s the theory of carbon dioxide build-up had gained traction (its modern revival had begun in 1938, thanks to Guy Callendar)

The specific context was that by 1966 noises were being made in the USA about the problem, especially via the President’s Science Advisory Committee. 

This was not the first time the issue had been raised at a British Association for the Advancement of Science conference. Peter Ritchie-Calder had already spoken about carbon dioxide build-up as a problem – in 1963. 

What I think we can learn from this- people in the UK were aware of the problem by the mid 1960s, which is a bit earlier than I’d really realised when I started this project.

What happened next – John Houghton worked on a variety of things (his biography is very good) and finally, in 1982-3 became head of the Met Office, taking over from John Mason.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 8, 1972 – Green activist vanishes off face of Earth…

September 8, 1990 – Australian #climate denialist spouting his nonsense…

September 8, 2000 – “Minchin’s Quiet Win”

September 8, 2014 – Lobster boat blockaders have charges dropped.

Categories
International processes Science Scientists

August 30, 2010 – InterAcademy Council report on IPCC

Sixteen years ago, on this day, August 30th, 2010,

2010 InterAcademy Council report on IPCC

Microsoft Word – IAC Review of IPCC_prepub.doc 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. As of 2026, 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 efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change had been going on for quite a while. See, for example, the spectacular efforts around the second assessment report and the work of Ben Santer.

The specific context was that in the run up to the Copenhagen Climate Conference of the Parties in 2009 there had been a hack, presumably by Russians or paid Russian hackers of the University of East Anglia’s emails. This was the so-called “Climategate” scandal, an enormous nothing burger where individual comments were taken out of context. Meanwhile, efforts were made to go through all of the IPCC reports and find whatever weaknesses and errors could be found, this all pushed the Inter Academy Council to do an assessment of the IPCC, which was released on this day.

What I think we can learn from this is the attacks on science by people who proclaim the importance of the scientific method and Western civilization, blah blah, are unrelenting, sometimes quite sophisticated, and – for those who want to believe them – quite effective. 

What happened next Attacks on the IPCC still happen, but frankly, the IPCC will go on producing assessment reports until the waters close over our heads, apparently the seventh assessment report is finally going to have some social science in there. Whoopsie do, because most of the social science around climate change that I’ve read is frankly misbegotten, which raises the question, Why aren’t I writing some of it myself, and then heading off to Stockholm for my Nobel prizes?

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 30, 1971 – Bob Carr (ex- NSW premier) ‘gets’ climate change

August 30, 1975 – The Science Show does climate change…

August 30, 1986 – Adelaide warned about climate change by Environment Minister Don Hopgood 

August 30, 1989 – A global tax on emissions?!

August 30, 1990 -Australian diplomats (probably) tried to water down IPCC recommendations

August 30, 1998 – Fourth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

July 19, 2010 – Stephen Schneider dies

Sixteen years ago, on this day, July  11st, 2010 scientist Stephen Schneider died.

Stephen H. Schneider 1945-2010

Dr. Stephen H. Schneider was the Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Professor of Biology, Professor (by courtesy) of Civil and Environ mental Engineering, and a Senior Fellow in the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University. Dr. Schneider received his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics from Columbia University in 1971. He studied the role of greenhouse gases and suspended particulate material on climate as a postdoctoral fellow at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He was awarded a postdoctoral fellowship at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in 1972 and was a member of the scientific staff of NCAR from 1973-1996, where he co-founded the Climate Project.

Internationally recognized for research, policy analysis and outreach in climate change, Dr. Schneider focused on climate change science, integrated assessment of ecological and economic impacts of human-induced climate change, and identifying viable climate policies and technological solutions. He consulted with federal agencies and/or White House staff in the Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, G.W. Bush, and Obama administrations.

[continues]

https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/References/Biography.html

Trenbeth at American Meteorological Jan 2011.  

https://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Paper180230.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was xxxppm. As of 2026, 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 Schneider’s first encounter with climate change/media had come in 1971, when he had co-authored a paper which got taken up as “an ice age is coming”. By the mid-1970s he was writing books like The Genesis Strategy and appearing on the Johnny Carson show

September 7, 1977 – #climate scientist Stephen Schneider on Carson for the last time…

. By the late 1970s he was giving clips to documentary makers like this –

Schneider was in Australia for the Greenhouse 88 conference(s), fielding media enquiries and generally doing a good job of being a public intellectual.

He was then first (iirc) ‘thinker in residence’ in South Australia.

Anyway, he died too young and there was a lot more he had to contribute.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

September 9, 1971 – Stephen Schneider’s letter, and a World Model

December 29, 1972 – Schneider meets Sullivan

November 1, 1975 – Stephen Schneider tries to clear up the “Carbon Dioxide Climate Confusion.”

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

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

July 19, 1968 – “man has already rendered the temperature equilibrium of the globe more unstable.” 

July 19, 1976 – , Scientist warns “ “If we’re still rolling along on fossil fuels by the end of the century, then we’ve had it.” 

July 19, 1977 – American public hears from a climate scientist 

July 19, 1979 – “a political view on C02”

Categories
Canada Scientists

 July 2, 1988 – end of the third meeting of the AGGG

Thirty eight  years ago, on this day, July  2nd, 1988, 

End of the third meeting of the Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases (AGGG), Toronto  (By then, IPCC was in process of creation.  See Agrawala GEC 1999 article-)

“The AGGG was established in 1986, two years prior to the IPCC, almost immediately after climate change emerged on the international political agenda. Following Downs (1972), this was the “alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm stage” within the issue-attention cycle of the global climate regime. The AGGG initially functioned in an almost utopian era where a small network of experts, international organizations and environmental advocacy groups had a near monopoly both on the international science and policy agenda. Unlike the IPCC, excessive governmental vetting or backlash from powerful industrial lobbies did not encumber the AGGG. The advisory group spawned creative goals to address climate change: setting “tolerable rates” of temperature increase which ought not be exceeded, as well as the establishment of emissions targets in terms of percentage cuts from baseline levels. Yet, as the political and economic costs of action on climate change began to take center-stage (the next stage in the Downs issue-attention cycle), the AGGG began to experience a steady attrition in the ranks of its core participants and failed to sustain interest among its institutional sponsors. It reached a comatose state by 1990 in which it has existed ever since, in complete obscurity. The scientific and political spotlight meanwhile has focused almost exclusively on the IPCC.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 351ppm. As of 2026, 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 there had been scientists banging on about climate change for quite a while (there’s a doozy of a 1977 letter I will publish on November 30th – bet you can’t wait!).

The specific context was that the Toronto conference on the Changing Atmosphere had just finished. The AGGG folks were probably knackered, since a bunch of them had been very heavily involved in organising that.

What I think we can learn from this is that we are smart enough to identify the problems, and, on a good day, to turn them into issues. To fix them? Not so much…

What happened next

AGGG dies, basically:

“Toronto marked the beginning of the end of the AGGG. Many of its o¦cial members, already playing marginal roles, now dropped out entirely (Table 1)”

November 3, 1990 – money for independent climate scientists? Yeah, nah

 (though the implication in Agrawala’s article is that it stumbled on for a decade?)

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

Agrawala, S. (1999)   Early science-policy interactions in climate change: lessons from the Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases. Global Environmental Change 9, 157-169

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

July 2, 1952 – Rachel Carson says Arctic warming

July 2, 1988 – Scientists warn of devastation…

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

July 2, 2001 – NRDC blasts “Bush” plan to increase reliance on coal – All Our Yesterdays 

July 2, 2007 – Australia learns it has been left “High & Dry” on #climate change

July 2, 2013 – Boris Johnson, expert on energy systems, attacks windfarms

July 2, 2013 – Ignorant man who became prime minister disses wind farms

Categories
International processes IPCC Science Scientists

April 8, 1995 – Fred Pearce writes “World lays odds on global catastrophe”….

Thirty one years ago today, New Scientist lays it out…

Fred Pearce article in New scientist about IPCC World Lays odds… 8-4-1995

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that  the New Scientist magazine had been going since the late 50s, And in an early issue, it had reported on carbon dioxide build up link and through the 70s and 80s, it had been regularly reported on the topic.   

The specific context was that Fred Piearce had been at the Berlin COP which had just finished, and it was clear that progress was going to be much slower than it had initially been hoped and it needed to be. And Pearce was not stupid, and he was not hopeful about our chances of not being incredibly stupid. 

Pearce has a new book out, btw. Despite It All: A Handbook for Climate Hopefuls

What I think we can learn from this is that a decent science journalist is a relatively good guide to life. 

What happened next:  Well, the COPs are still going, but the emissions have climbed and climbed and climbed and the atmospheric concentrations are now climbing very rapidly, and we are in a world of shit of our own devising. What do we do about it? I don’t know that there is much that we can do. To be honest, why am I doing this? Because I can, because it’s a habit, because I don’t know why I’m doing this.

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: 

April 8, 1970 – Australian National University students told about C02 build-up…

April 8, 1980 – UK civil servant Crispin Tickell warns Times readers…

April 8, 1995 – Australian environment minister says happy with “Berlin Mandate”

April 8, 1995 – Journo points out the gamble on climate – All Our Yesterdays

April 8, 2013 – Margaret Thatcher died

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

 March 28, 1980 – Idiotic climate paper published in Science

Forty six years ago on this day, March 28th, 1980 a truly pathetic paper found its way into the pages of Science.

Idso, S. 1980 – The Climatological Significance of a Doubling of Earth’s Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration 

The abstract ran(t) as follows. [source]

The mean global increase in thermal radiation received at the surface of the earth as a consequence of a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide content is calculated to be 2.28 watts per square meter. Multiplying this forcing function by the atmosphere’s surface air temperature response function, which has recently been determined by three independent experimental analyses to have a mean global value of 0.113 K per watt per square meter, yields a value of </= 0.26 K for the resultant change in the mean global surface air temperature. This result is about one order of magnitude less than those obtained from most theoretical numerical models, but it is virtually identical to the result of a fourth experimental approach to the problem described by Newell and Dopplick. There thus appears to be a major discrepancy between current theory and experiment relative to the effects of carbon dioxide on climate. Until this discrepancy is resolved, we should not be too quick to limit our options in the selection of future energy alternatives.

And a few weeks later, there was this exchange…

From ‘Effects of Carbon Dioxide Buildup in the Atmosphere’, Hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, April 3, 1980:

“Senator (Dale) BUMPERS. . . The fact that there has been no political response to the testimony we have had here for at least 3 years, the last 3 years, about the potential for dramatic climatic effect upon the earth by the buildup of CO2 (the point that the whole problem is such a long term problem) is well taken.

“Congress has not responded and we are getting some conflicting information too. People who have testified have not been . . . precise and definitive. …

“For example, ‘Science magazine’ on March 28 estimated that the average Earth temperature rise from doubling the world’s atmospheric CO2 is about 26 hundredths of one degree Celsius, which is about 1 tenth of the value generally estimated.

“Dr. (Gordon) MACDONALD (Chief Scientist of MITRE Corporation). Could I comment on that point?

“Senator BUMPERS. Yes.

“Dr. MACDONALD.I have looked in detail at that paper. It is a very strange paper.

“Senator BUMPERS. Shall I throw it away?

“Dr. MACDONALD. Yes. The final result is the product of two numbers. One is described very badly. The other is described as a result of the search under preparation. One can reconstruct the reasoning and do the proper calculations, and would have to multiply the second number by a factor of six, the first number by a factor of two to get the proper description, so that number is off by a factor of about 12.

“Dr. (William) KELLOGG (Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research): I quite agree with what Dr. MacDonald has said. The conclusion is based on a calculation at the surface at a point. It does not apply to the global carbon dioxide question as it stands.

“Dr. MACDONALD. That is correct.”

(Quoted in William Barbat’s wonderful CO2 Newsletter.)

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 there are always scientists who need to be “edgy”. And that is fine, because science needs doubt, conflict etc.  But it has to be, you know, robust. Not demented.

The specific context was that Idso had form

What I think we can learn from this is that Idso was not the sharpest tool in the box. 

What happened next. Idso kept Idsoing. He’s dead now, which is a tragedy for climate 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.

References

Barbat in CO2 Newsletter

Also on this day: 

 March 28, 2001 – (Vice) President George Bush nixes Kyoto

March 28, 2010 – protestors block Newcastle coal terminal #auspol

March 28, 2017 – Heartland Institute spamming science teachers

March 28, 2017 – Trump “brings back coal”

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

March 17, 1982 – An overview of US carbon dioxide/climate research is written. 

Forty four years ago, on this day, March 17th, 1982

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 since 1977, at the beginning of the Carter Administration, there had been workshops, seminars, conferences etc. By 1982 A LOT was known. 

The specific context was that this research was having precisely zero impact on policymakers, who were Reaganaut nutjobs

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew plenty and that we had our chances and we blew them.  

What happened next. The emissions kept climbing. And climbing. And so did the concentrations. 

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: 

March 17, 1976 – UK Weather boss dismisses climate change as “grossly exaggerated”

March 17, 2006 – Rio Tinto says “CCS is key to cutting greenhouse gases.” Oops, then…

March 17, 2007 – Edinburgh #climate action gathering says ‘Now’ the time to act

 March 17, 2014 – Carbon Bus sets off to the North

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

March 7, 1980 – Carbon Balance in Northern Ecosystems and the Potential Effect of Carbon Dioxide Induced Climatic Change

Forty six years ago, on this day, March 7th, 1980,

Carbon Balance in Northern Ecosystems and the Potential Effect of Carbon Dioxide Induced Climatic Change

Report of a Workshop, San Diego, California, March 7-9, 1980 

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31822007443104&seq=7

and 

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Carbon_Balance_in_Northern_Ecosystems_an/cb0JAQAAIAAJ?hl=en

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 by about 1976-77 especially people within the senior levels of the United States science establishment – I’m thinking specifically of Alvin Weinberg, but it’s not just him – were really thinking hard about climate change from carbon dioxide build-up. So perhaps one of the key documents that I need to think about more is the August 1976 report from Oak Ridge. 

Anyway, there had been the Miami Beach meeting in 1977 and now more and more conferences and meetings, scientific workshops, all in the hope that the politicians could be persuaded to take it all seriously. And at this point, of course, the idea of synfuels were still in the mix as a response to the second oil shock. 

The specific context was that the first world climate conference had happened, and there was money from the Department of Energy for these sorts of workshops.

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew enough in 1980 to be taking action (as per the CO2 Newsletter).

What happened next. More meetings. The crucial event was the election of Ronald Reagan that basically put the kibosh on all the effort, or most of the political policy efforts within the 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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 7, 1988 – “We are ratcheting ourselves to a new warmer climate” 

March 7, 1991 – Australian Labor Party bragging about its green credentials…

 March 7, 1996 – Australia hauled over coals for its definition of “equity” #auspol

March 7, 2001 – CNN unintentionally reveals deep societal norms around democracy

March 7, 2012 – George Christensen and his culture war hijinks.