Category: Uncategorized

Thirty years ago, on this day, June 26th,  1996 another GCC flak letter (see also 30 May). 

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 362ppm. 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 for this was that industries that feel threatened by potential or actual regulation by states, local, federal, national, whatever, will usually fight back by supporting or inventing politicians who will fight their corner. And they will flood the public domain, newspapers and then later, radio, television and the internet, with arguments against regulation. It’s been explained and exposed many times. 

One particularly good exposure, in my opinion, is Nancy Oreskes and Stephen Conway’s, Merchants of Doubt. You’ve also got on climate, two books by Ross Gelbspan, “The Heat Is On” and “Boiling Point.”

And so it came to pass with climate in 1989 something called the Global Climate Coalition was created. Sounds cuddly, doesn’t it? But it is actually opposition to national and international action on climate change via the usual mechanisms of group public letters signed by the CEOs of a bunch of companies, incredibly dodgy economic modelling that “proves” the sky will fall, divisive rhetoric, targeting of vulnerable politicians who have elections coming up, threats of funding their opponents, classic carrot and stick. 

The specific context was that by this time, the attacks had moved to the scientists with the IPCC second assessment report. And they wheeled out a bunch of decrepit Relevance Deprivation Syndrome suffering physicists to try and create confusion. It worked.

What I think we can learn is this: is that evil organisations doing evil things have to contend with people who have slivers of morality. 

What happened next: the Global Climate Coalition also attacked, of course, the Kyoto Protocol. Then in 2002 it splintered even further and lost more members, especially Ford; the gig was up. And in any case, the Global Climate Coalition was able to declare victory. They had stopped there being any robust international or national response to climate and secured their profits for another few decades. 

You’d compare it with the greenhouse mafia in Australia, but it was wider, better funded, more organised. 

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: 

June 26, 1975 – Denialist Richard Scorer being stupid

June 26, 1986 – Australian Environment Council schooled on climate

June 26, 1986 – “our children will grow old  in a world that fragmenting and disintegrating.”

June 26, 1988 – it’s SHOWTIME for climate…

June 26, 1991 “environment is not flavor of the month any more” 

June 26, 1992 – BCA versus reality (BCA wins in the short-term) – 

June 26, 2009 – Impact on cartoonists 

Fifty nine years ago, on this day, June 25th, 1967,

Broadcasting of the first live global satellite television program: Our World

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_World_(1967_TV_program)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 322ppm. 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 for this was that television had been invented in 1927 and there had been a certain amount of TV before World War Two, but then it had been stopped for the duration of the war. And after the war for 10 years, there was only the BBC, but then Independent Television started in the mid late 50s, and at the same time, in 1957 the BBC ran a live-from-the-studio presentation called The Restless Sphere. This was a triumph for the science unit under Aubrey Singer, and here we see Singer’s next big leap, a satellite broadcast just before colour television got going. 

What I think we can learn is this: the idiot’s lantern has a global reach. 

What happened next: A lot more television! On 1988 there was an Australian satellite link up for “Greenhouse 88”.

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: 

 June 25, 1986 – AEC meeting – 

June 25, 1990 – Ecologically Sustainable Development paper released

June 25, 1996 – Wall Street Journal pretends to be a newspaper  

June 25, 2002, 2003 and 2008 – CCS’s first hype cycle builds 

June 25, 2003 – the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum is created

June 25, 2007 – “what would you liked to have been?”

On this day, April 27 –

The Ecology Party (briefly “People” in 1975) had fought some by-elections, and now, ahead of the 1979 General Election, was on the idiot box…

April 27, 1979 – Ecology Party first TV broadcast ahead 

Thirty nine years ago, all the warm platitudes about “sustainable development” and “North-South partnership” got their final big run.

April 27, 1987 – “Our Common Future” released.

Nineteen years ago today a controversial “coal is filthy” campaign by a natural gas provider ended.

April 27, 2007 – Coal-bashing campaign by gas company ends

Sixteen years ago today, a dickhead Australian prime minister sealed his fate by showing that all his fine words about climate as a “great moral challenge” were empty PR. Turd.

April 27, 2010 – Rudd says no CPRS until 2012 at earliest. Seals fate – All Our Yesterdays

Fifty six years ago, on this day, November 1st, 1969, an academic article is published – 

“Carbon dioxide affects global ecology”  

https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/document32

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 324ppm. 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 from the early 1960s the concern about carbon dioxide had grown from a few knowledgeable people, and slowly spread. By 1967 it was appearing in Time Magazine, and Newsweek.

The specific context was in 1969 questions of global ecology and pollution had bloomed. The firing gun had been the Santa Barbara Oil Spill in January.

What I think we can learn from this is that  – we knew plenty.

What happened next – there was an international conference in June 1972 in Stockholm. Emissions kept climbing. And climbing.

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: 

November 1, 1959 – M1 motorway section opened

November 1, 1974 – UK civil servants writing to each other on “Climatology”

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

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

November 1, 1989 – Senior Australian politician talks on “Industry and Environment”

November 1, 1989 – “Greenhouse Action Australia” launches…

November 1, 2004 – Brilliant “Balance as Bias” article published 

On this day 34 years ago, Otzi was discovered…

Ötzi, also called The Iceman, is the natural mummy of a man who lived between 3350 and 3105 BC. Ötzi’s remains were discovered on 19 September 1991, in the Ötztal Alps (hence the nickname “Ötzi”, German: [œtsi]) at the Austria–Italy border. He is Europe’s oldest known natural human mummy, offering an unprecedented view of Chalcolithic (Copper Age) Europeans.

Because of the presence of an arrowhead embedded in his left shoulder and various other wounds, researchers believe that Ötzi was killed by another person. The nature of his life and the circumstances of his death are the subject of much investigation and speculation. His remains and personal belongings are on exhibit at the South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology in Bolzano, South Tyrol, Italy.

Ötzi – Wikipedia

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. 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 we have been putting rather large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for a couple of hundred years.

The specific context was that by the 1980s it was obvious that the Swiss/Italian/Austrian Alps were beginning to melt…

What I think we can learn from this – carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (who knew?).

What happened next

We kept putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

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: 

September 19 1969 – ABC Radio warns listeners about carbon dioxide – All Our Yesterdays

September 19, 1997 – John Howard condemns the South Pacific to hell. Again.

September 19, 1998 – Public Health Association calls for “life-saving green taxes”

Twenty eight  years ago, on this day, June 20th, 1997,

Australian diplomats in Washington were asked to seek evidence casting doubt on US forecasts of the cost of fighting climate change – because they present a much rosier picture than Australia’s own estimates. Canberra’s reaction to the American economic modelling is contained in confidential cablegrams between the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and its embassy in Washington, which unveil Australia’s campaign against the greenhouse push by the US President, Mr Clinton.

Lobbying in the US has been intensifying ahead of the decisive climate change convention in Kyoto in December, where Australia fears that legally binding, uniform targets to cut greenhouse gas pollution will be set for developed nations.

The American “interagency modelling” estimates that Australia’s economic output would fall by only one-third of what Australia predicts if greenhouse gas emissions – which are causing global warming – are held to 1990 levels in 2010.

The interagency modelling says Australia would suffer less loss than West European nations and Canada, which is the reverse of the forecasts by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE).

“The US estimates understate the costs of climate change control to Australia both in absolute terms and relative to other countries,” says one cablegram dated June 20.

It asks the Washington embassy to investigate why all of the “peer reviewers” have not “signed off” on the modelling report. This is despite ABARE having declined to release peer reviews of its own modelling.

1997 Hogarth, M. 1997. Diplomats Told To Find Holes In Climate Figures. Sydney Morning Herald, 28 August, p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 365.7ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Australia had shifted from relatively enthusiastic and credible on environmental issues (whaling, the Antarctic, ozone and – initially – carbon dioxide) to near pariah state. The rot had begun under Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating, and accelerated slightly (or more) under Liberal Prime Minster John Howard.

The specific context was that Australia had agreed to turn up at the third Conference of the Parties (COP) with a plan to reduce its emissions. That had been under Keating. Howard was in no mood to follow through, and came out swinging.

What I think we can learn from this is that Howard is a climate criminal and it is not too late to get him to the Hague.  Also, economic modelling is mostly a sick joke.

What happened next is that Australia extorted a de jure “reduction” target of 108% of its 1990 emissions at Kyoto. De facto, thanks to an absurd “land-clearing clause” that negotiators were too exhausted to push back against, it was closer to 130%.  

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: 

June 20, 1977- “Alternative Three” – An early Climate Hoax  – All Our Yesterdays

June 20, 1979 – Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House – All Our Yesterdays

34 years ago today, former Finance Minister Peter Walsh was spitting the dummy again. 

The former Minister for Finance, Peter Walsh, attacked Australia’s major conservation groups yesterday saying he hoped Australia’s largest company, BHP, would use common law to bankrupt Greenpeace for interfering with seismic testing.

Senator Walsh said the major environmental groups were trying to subvert economic development — an objective they had pursued with some success.

Launching a book which emphasised market solutions to environmental problems, Senator Walsh said extreme elements of the conservation movement were more concerned with “destroying” industrial capitalism than protecting the environment.

“One wonders how long a country which is unquestionably some distance down the Argentinian road will continue to allow organisations like the Australian Conservation Foundation to subvert economic growth, and particularly the growth in the traded goods sector, to the extent that they do,” he said.

A long-time critic of the conservation movement, Senator Walsh fired a broad side at Greenpeace over its recent campaign to stop BHP’s oil exploration in Bass Strait. The organisation argued that the seismic tests would disturb whales which breed in the area.

He accused Greenpeace of hypocrisy in trying to stop oil exploration using petrol-powered rubber dinghies and a diesel-powered mother-ship.

“I hope that BHP sues Greenpeace under the common law and collects damages large enough to bankrupt the organisation.”

The book, Markets, Resources and the Environment, was produced by the Tasman Institute which Senator Walsh acknowledged many in the Labor Party considered “only marginally less obnoxious” than the League of Rights, or the Queensland National Party.

Lamberton, H. 1991. Walsh attacks greenies. Canberra Times, 10 April, p.3.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122355943

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Walsh from Western Australia (that’s not insignificant) absolutely loathed “greenies,” as per his comments in March 1990 on the eve of the federal election victory that was handed by to Labor by small g-green voters.

Walsh, as a columnist in the Financial Review, would bang on this drum repeatedly. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the Australian Labor Party has always had a faction that has absolutely loathed greenies and resented having to compete for small g green votes because they are wedded to one particular vision of prosperity (pave the planet, redistribute the crumbs from the developers’ pockets and call it social justice). They also don’t like having to engage in debate with people who don’t have precisely the same world view as them because they are brittle af.

What happened next

Walsh kept on being a prick and was a leading light in the Lavoisier Group of climate denialist pricks. 

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 9, 1990 – Australian business launches “we’re green!” campaign

April 9, 1991 – Peter Walsh goes nuts, urges BHP to sue Greenpeace – All Our Yesterdays

April 9, 2008 – US school student vs dodgy (lying) text books

April 9, 2019- brutal book review “a script for a West Wing episode about climate change, only with less repartee.”