Category: Uncategorized

Categories
Uncategorized

August 23, 1853 – first International Meteorological Conference

One hundred and eighty years ago, on this day, August 23, 1853, scientists from around the world got together in Belgium to hash out some standardised approaches to measuring things.

Enduring cooperation began with the First International Meteorological Conference, held on 23 August 1853 in Brussels. This conference standardised meteorological observations to be taken from ships, by establishing a set of instructions for how to take measurements, and a standard form for recording them. It was organised at the initiative of a naval officer, Lieutenant MF Maury of the United States Navy.

Paterson, M (1996) page 18

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Meteorological_Organization#:~:text=Matthew%20Fontaine%20Maury%2C%20of%20the,the%20Minister%20of%20the%20Interior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Fontaine_Maury

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was with the coming of the telegraph, and thus international communication and collaboration in collecting measurements became much easier in real time. But then this raises the question of who is using which measures at which time so that you can have a decent database of comparable/accurate info.

What I think we can learn from this is that the nitty gritty work of doing science of measuring things and thinking about causal relations requires good data which requires cooperation and we’ve been doing that successfully for a long time 170 years.

What happened next

The 19th century saw the ongoing assault on nature, the colonisation of Africa (“colonisation” is one nice word – attack, hyper-extraction would do), the development of new Industries (especially chemistry), the coming of electricity, the industrialisation of Europe, and chunks of of the United States. that’s quite some century and in the short-term, on climate science, a few years later you’ve got Eunice Foote and a few years after that John Tyndall…

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

Zilman, J. 2018.

Categories
Uncategorized

August 6, 1990 – another climate documentary shown…

Thirty three years ago, on this day, August 6, 1990, a BBC Panorama documentary made it as far as the colonies….

1990 Political climate [videorecording] / reporter Steve Bradshaw ; producer Charles Furneaux Published Sydney : Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 1990#

 (In the UK it had been called “The Big Heat” and was broadcast on May 21.1990)

https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/22a5069010204a1ea1421917335be902

The Big Heat

As the cold war ends, world leaders are already beginning to fight the climate war. They have been warned by scientists that global warming, caused by industrialisation and pollution, will cause a dramatic increase in storms, floods and droughts around the world. But there is bitter disagreement over who should pay the cost of preventing such disastrous climatic change. Should the burden fall on the west, with the risk of recession and a fall in living standards, or should Third World countries also foot the bill, even though it may mean hunger and poverty?

As part of One World week, Stephen Bradshaw reports from Britain, America and India on the politics of the climate, and reveals the latest scientific evidence on the future of our weather. Producer Charles Furneaux Editor Mark Thompson

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was an insatiable appetite, it seemed, for documentaries about climate change. And the ABC showing this BBC input is nothing particularly newsworthy. But this stuff was going on all the time.

What I think we can learn from this is that when an issue is hot, there is a provision of documentaries, think pieces, books, etc.  Most end up in obscurity, deserved or otherwise. Or are cited without being read.

What happened next

The moment passed, it always does. It always has until now – now the issue isn’t going away because the consequences are piling up….

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.

Categories
Uncategorized United States of America

August 1, 1980 – Wall Street Journal does excellent #climate reporting

Forty three years ago, on this day, August 1, 1980, The Wall Street Journal ran a seriously good report on the problem of climate change. It included professors (inc David Rose) and also the view from trade bodies like the National Coal Association. You will be shocked, shocked to learn that they were not sold on the idea that their product was gonna create global chaos… And here we are…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm , but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that more and more scientists were coming out and saying carbon dioxide was going to be a serious factor in climate change. There had been the NAS report in 1977, but more recently, the First World Climate Conference, the Charney report and the G7 meeting in Tokyo, and the Global 2000 report.

So it’s unsurprising that the business press, (the Wall Street Journal fancies itself as the equivalent of the Financial Times but it’s not even close, would want to cover the issue). What’s a little surprising is just how good the article was. There’s a lovely dismissive quote from the coal lobby.

What I think we can learn from this is (1) as ever, if you really want to understand what’s going on in the world, quality business press is the way forward and (2) that the National coal Association was all over the issue. Of course they were. 

What happened next

Three months later, Jimmy Carter lost the presidency and America and the world lost the momentum though it continued to some extent in Europe. 

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.

Categories
Australia Netherlands Uncategorized

July 22, 1991 – two #climate idiots on the Science Show

Thirty two years ago, on this day, July 22, 1991, the Australian radio program “The Science Show” (ABC Radio) had two climate denialists on. Oh joy.

(See Robyn Williams letter to The Australian, 1991, Dec 6, p.10).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Science Show had from its very beginnings been aware of the dangers of climate change. So Ritchie Caleer, who had been writing about the problem emphatically since the late 60s (and had been aware of it since the early 1950s), was a guest in 1975 on the first episode.

In 1991, the politics of it national of climate, internationally and nationally were getting hot. The negotiations for a climate treaty to be signed in June of 92 were going nowhere thanks to the resolute intransigence and blocking of the United States administration. 

Meanwhile, in Australia, the Ecologically Sustainable Development policy process was reaching its final stages, drafts were being written ahead of release within a couple of months. I don’t know if the Science Show had pro-climate action guests the week before the week after. But on this occasion, they had two idiots. One was Bill Nirenberg, one of the Jasons who you can read about in Merchants of Doubt. He had helped to write the 1983 NAS “changing climate” report, saying, “Oh, it’ll be long term and there’s nothing we can do anyway.” The other guest was Brian O’Brien, one of the more active climate deniers on the Australian scene. He was able to play on the fact that he had been the scientist for NASA, as if this somehow gave him expertise on climate science. O’Brian had written various screeds about climate policy, especially attacking the “Toronto Target”.

What I think we can learn from this is that even the best media has to allow dodgy people on because if you don’t, it is “censorship”. And especially 31 years ago, there was still need to “hear both sides of the argument.” And to be fair, I don’t know how Robyn Williams dealt with that at the time, maybe he did a very good job of sending a public health warning to listeners. 

What happened next

The ecologically sustainable development process was killed off by new Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating and his henchmen within the Australian Federal bureaucracy. The Rio Earth Summit, rubberstamped a piss-weak climate treaty, i.e. the Americans won. And in long term, everybody lost. 

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.

Categories
Coal Fossil fuels Science Uncategorized United States of America

 July 15, 1977 – “Heavy Use of Coal May Bring Adverse Shift in Climate”

Forty six years ago, on this day, July 15, 1977, the New York Times ran a front page story that makes you just groan.  Oh, and by the way, coal use is up in the last year..

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the National Academy of Science had been doing a two year investigation into weather and carbon dioxide and was about to release its report. And clearly a journalist at the Times had been given a tip off and was getting a kind of exclusive in first.

From the 50s some scientists had been saying “hey, carbon dioxide is going to be an issue,” and had slowly been able to build an epistemic community as Hart and Victor would have you call it.

What I think we can learn from this

We knew. It was, literally, front page news.

What happened next

In the mid-late 70s it all started to come together. It was then scuppered/slowed successfully between 1981 and 1985. And then with the scientific meeting in September 1985 at Villach, the push begins again.

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.

Categories
Uncategorized

 July 9, 2008 – President Bush operating at his peak intellectual capacity

Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 9, 2008 George Bush, who had been President thanks to his dad’s mates on the Supreme Court, told the G8 “Goodbye from the world’s greatest polluter.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that George Bush had served two terms as President having been handed the first one by the Supreme Court and then legitimately winning the second albeit with some boxy help, during the second debate with John Kerry

Bush at the G8  had that typical smirk and wanted to, as we now call it, “own the libs,” which he was very good at. And he conceded that yes, the US is the world’s biggest polluter. And it goes back to notions of the United States “way of life” being non negotiable, as his spokesperson had said in early 2001. 

What I think we can learn from this is that when high carbon behaviours are “non-negotiable” and you don’t have any decent forms of mass provision, then yeah, you’re gonna be the world’s biggest polluter, and it’s actually not something to be proud of, or joke about, asshole. 

What happened next

The world’s biggest polluter kept at it. Obvs.

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.

Categories
Uncategorized

July 5, 1973 – The Predicament of Mankind discussed

Fifty years ago, on this day, July 5, 1973, a Nobel laureate called Dennis Gabor gave a speech at Lindau on “The Predicament of Mankind.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was running around with a computer, either Malthus or otherwise, proclaiming Limits to Growth or the need for blueprints to survival especially by the year 2000 (odometer years are seductive things). And look, here comes some Nobel Prize winners to stroke their chins and either add to clarity or add to confusion. 

What I think we can learn from this

The thing that we should really remember about “Nobel Prize winner X”  or a “x Nobel Prize winners sign open letter” is just because they’re really really smart in one particular domain mean doesn’t mean that their self-confidence in that domain, let alone other domains, is necessarily justified. Because for every prescient warning at gatherings like Lindau, there was another one that was completely barking. As Nils Bohr said, prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.  

What happened next

The Lindau lot kept meeting. There have been highlights and lowlights. This year a guy on a manel bemoaned how hard it was for young white men…

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.

Categories
Uncategorized

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

Ten years ago, on this day, July 2, 2013, Boris defuckhead Johnson writes in his column in the Daily Telegraph “newspaper” that  “Wind farms couldn’t pull the skin off a rice pudding”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was overpaid hack Boris Johnson needed to write a column. And attacking wind farms is always easy if you’re a conservative. Johnson, of course, didn’t bother to do any research. Why would he, that’s not what they were paying him for. You don’t ask a clown to have evidence based policy and you should not ask a clown to be Prime Minister or World King, Offshore wind was in a precarious position but was beginning to make headway.

OTHER OLD WHITE MEN

’ Mr Peter McGauran MP, the federal Minister for Agriculture and member for Gippsland, went further in June 2006, saying ‘Wind farms don’t live up to the hype that they’re the environmental saviour and a serious alternative energy source.

(Prest, 2007: 254)

ABC, 2006. Pete McGauran says wind farms a fraud. AM Program, 29 June. 2006

Old white men just can’t bear to be dependent (Hudson 2017)

What I think we can learn from this commentators especially right wing ones, can say any old fact-free shit that they like and suffer no consequences. Wind power now provides a decent (and climbing)  percentage of our electricity needs, on an annual basis in the UK. (Please note I am not advocating a 100% wind energy economy nobody is that’s a straw man. That’s a trap.)

What happened next

Boris Johnson became Prime Minister and by between the narrating of this and the uploading, probably Prime Minister again. [no, actually he is toast.] 

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.

Categories
Uncategorized

June 3, 2010 – Merchants of Doubt published

Thirteen years ago, on this day, June 3, 2010, one of the best books about climate denial and its historical roots was published: Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been earlier books (including two by Ross Gelbspan which I would recommend) about climate denial. Oreskes and Conway had been working hard to show the history of organised denial of basic science by industry and how the climate people had learned from ozone and tobacco, same playbook, and how certain personnel were the same. It was published maybe a year too late to have the impact that it could have, if it had come out. Before Copenhagen, it might have exposed and neutered the sort of climategate bullshit, but here we are. The book is really, really good. And I would strongly recommend that you read it. 

What I think we can learn from this

Good books can change folks’ perspective (duh).

What happened next

They made a movie. Everybody knows, who wants to know, that there have been systematic programmes of lying to us. But because those liars are well-protected, and don’t suffer consequences, and because it’s exhausting to be lied to, the lies wash you down. And the promises rust.

And because of the mass media being what it is, as opposed to what media could be, we are where we are, where we are.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Uncategorized

May 23, 2012 – wicked problems and super-wicked problems all around…

Eleven years ago, on this day, May 23, 2012, there was an interesting paper published about “wicked problems” and super wicked problems.

2012 Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change published on 23 May 2012 

Most policy-relevant work on climate change in the social sciences either analyzes costs and benefits of particular policy options against important but often narrow sets of objectives or attempts to explain past successes or failures. We argue that an ‘‘applied forward reasoning’’ approach is better suited for social scientists seeking to address climate change, which we characterize as a ‘‘super wicked’’ problem comprising four key features: time is running out; those who cause the problem also seek to provide a solution; the central authority needed to address it is weak or non-existent; and, partly as a result, policy responses discount the future irrationally. These four features combine to create a policy-making ‘‘tragedy’’ where traditional analytical techniques are ill equipped to identify solutions, even when it is well recognized that actions must take place soon to avoid catastrophic future impacts.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0.pdf?pdf=button

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that we have known about so-called wicked problems for 50 years. And the idea of super wicked problems has been around for thirty.

Climate change is a super wicked problem par excellence, and this was especially obvious in the aftermath of the Copenhagen fiasco, which had occurred in December 2009. And it was not at this point at all clear that the UNFCCC caravan could have its wheels put back on in any meaningful sense.

What I think we can learn from this

It’s super-wicked problems all the way down… We kept punching the tar baby, and now it’s all over but the dying.

What happened next

We didn’t even acknowledge that these are super-wicked problems, let alone take actions to roll with the punches…

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.