Sixty two years ago, on this day, September 3rd, 1963, at the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Aberdeen on the morning of September 3, Ritchie Calder gave a speech on “Man and his Fellow Lodgers; a Question of Co-existence”.
Discharge of combustion products into the atmosphere had increased its content of carbon dioxide by 10 per cent in a century. The ‘green house effect’ could be expected to increase average mean temperature by 3·6° C in the next 40-50 years. This would radically affect the extent of glaciers and ice-caps with resultant rise in sea- and river-levels and increasing precipitation.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 319ppm. 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 Ritchie-Calder had known about the carbon dioxide problem from at least 1954 (possibly earlier). He had written an article in the News Chronicle, as their science correspondent in 1954.
The specific context was that in March 1963 the Conservation Foundation had held a one-day conference in New York. Frank Fraser-Darling was there, and may have alerted Ritchie-Calder, who was already aware of the issue (he wrote a newspaper article in 1954).
What I think we can learn from this is that members of the British scientific elite were informed about the possibility by the early 1960s (some earlier, obviously).
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 367ppm. 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 conferences about “greenhouse gas control technologies” had been happening since the early 1990s.
The specific context was that this was the first one after the Kyoto Protocol was “agreed” the previous December. It now looked like rich countries were going to have to something to reduce their emissions. Therefore, a bit more attention was being paid to various
What I think we can learn from this is that the promises of capture/reducing greenhouse gas emissions have been spilling from engineers’ mouths for decades. Proven at scale technologies that capture meaningful amounts of carbon dioxide? Not so much…
What happened next – the conferences kept happening. CCS has gone through periodic periods of rise and fall since then. The only really steady trend is in the Keeling Curve, which measures the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And guess what, that’s starting to point up more. Happy days.
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.
”estimates of the consequent warming … range from possibly acceptable to catastrophic.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 332ppm. 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 through the 1970s more and more scientists were looking at carbon dioxide levels and saying to themselves “yikes”…
The specific context was that the response to the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo had been the US announcing “Project Independence” – lots more coal and nuclear….
What I think we can learn from this is that we knew plenty, half a century ago. And here we are.
What happened next was that there was a push for the issue to be taken seriously. If Carter had got a second term, maybe. But that all ended with Desert One…
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 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.
Seventy one years ago, on this day, May 24th, 1954,
24 to 26 May 1954 – Eriksson, “Report on an informal conference in atmospheric chemistry held at the Meteorological Institute, University of Stockholm, May 24-26, 1954,” Tellus, 6 (1954)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the question of carbon dioxide build-up had returned to prominence with the 1953 presentation by Gilbert Plass at the American Geophysical Union’s meeting. The Swedes had a lot of expertise in this field, and prestige (Carl Rossby etc).
What I think we can learn from this is that from the early 1950s good scientists were looking at this and going “hmm.”
What happened next. According to Weart (1997) they set up carbon dioxide monitoring stations and just got noise because there were too many forests nearby.
Rossby died too young. The baton was picked up by Bert Bolin and others. For all the good it did us, at a species-level.
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.
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.
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.
27 March 1995, to another Australian audience – “On the greenhouse effect, Sir John suggested that the onus of proof had shifted towards those who denied it”. https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-253921166/view?sectionId=nla.obj-259513073&partId=nla.obj-253927437#
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the first IPCC report had come out, and the second was near completion. John Maddox, finally, 25 years after his first attacks on carbon dioxide concerns, was conceding that those worried had been right and he’d been wrong. Not that he put it in those words of course.
The older context was that in 1971 Maddox on a visit to Australia had rubbished worries about carbon dioxide….
What I think we can learn from this is it takes old white men a very long time to change their tune. It’s not clear to me that the former Met Office supremo, John Mason, for example, ever did.
What happened next
The second IPCC report came out saying that there was a discernible influence of human activity. And this word got monstered. The denialists knew enough not to go for Bert Bolin, so they went for Ben Santer instead.
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.
Thirty years ago, on this day, March 26th, 1995, red and green try to mix, with limited success.
Bad blood flows between the green movement and the union movement. The controversy over logging recently has led to ugly incidents between timber workers and conservationists. Ms George said she had agreed to speak at a conference on women and the environment this weekend to try to ease some of the hostility between the two groups…. The Australian Conservation Foundation’s executive director, Ms Tricia Caswell, said the ACF, Greenpeace and women’s groups had decided to host the conference at the World Congress Centre because women were often the backbone of community environment groups and were the main environmental educators to children but received little recognition.
Milburn, C. 1995. ACTU’s George Plays Peacemaker To Greens, Unions. The Age, March 24
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Australia is a patriarchal settler colony with horrendous attitudes on sex, race, nature, and there are ongoing cultural, ideological, political, physical battles around this. When ACF set this conference up, they were probably hoping that they could bask in the glory of a carbon tax, but it was not to be.
crucially,Can we find someone who was there that would be interesting, a woman who was there in Melbourne, 30 years ago. So for an interview, Article doesn’t have to be specifically about that conference and whether it meant anything, because, frankly, maybe it didn’t. It can be more broad than that. Okay, send out the request.
What I think we can learn from this
We fail. And we keep failing.
What happened next
We failed some more.
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.
Thirty five years ago, on this day, March 24th, 1990, on the night of the Federal election, a retiring Labor Minister got stuck in to environmentalists.
“The backlash against environmentalists began very publicly on election night. Peter Walsh launched a bitter attack on them from the tally room, attempting to deny any influence they might have had on the outcome. He was joined in later weeks and months by a number of Cabinet ministers, largely but not exclusively from the economic portfolios, but careful evaluation of that election result makes Walsh’s assertion untenable.
Malcolm Mackerras (The Australian, March 1, 1993) summarises the result well: on the primaries, the Coalition had 43.5 per cent to Labor’s 39.4 per cent, the Democrats 11.3 and others 5.8 per cent.
However, Labor’s environment second-preference strategy was so successful that the two-way party preferred vote became 50.1 per cent for the Coalition and 49.9 per cent for Labor (which just fell over the line to win in seats).”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was the Australian Federal election, where the ALP gets a fourth term very narrowly, and crucially, thanks to small g green voters, though Peter Walsh, who was stepping down, didn’t like to be beholden to people he despised (people who believed in, you know, beauty and post-material values and all the rest of it.) Walsh was an old-fashioned Labor right, disdained these people, and must have hated that his party could only get back into power with their help. Thus, of course, vociferous denial and denunciation.
What I think we can learn from this is that people like Walsh, and there are lots of them around, cannot abide fragility, especially their own.
What happened next
Walsh acted out his fury and hate and presumably self-loathing in both his newspaper columns. See here LINK and here, LINK for example, and also as part of the Lavoisier Group. If ever you needed an Australian poster poster boy for anti-reflexivity, (link to video about this here) it’s Peter Walsh
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.
By Greg Allen https://www.npr.org/2015/03/10/392142452/florida-gov-scott-denies-banning-phrase-climate-change
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 401ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that even if the Florida governor didn’t ban mention of carbon dioxide, climate change, it’s entirely plausible that he could have. And these sorts of cultural battles in the United States with Republicans wanting to wish things they don’t like away, well known. It’s really the hide and seek tactic of a child who doesn’t understand that they’re not the center of the universe. “If I close my eyes and can’t see you, that means that you can’t see me.” The world doesn’t work like that, and most people figure that out when they’re quite young. Others, not so much.
What I think we can learn from this. In the following 10 years Florida has had various hurricanes which don’t stick around in public memory the way that I think things used to (maybe I could be wrong), and large parts of it are going to be reclaimed by the ocean, as per the 1958 warning by Frank Capra. (LINK)
And the Trump administration is De Santis writ large, without any of Governor Scott’s equivocation…
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.
