Categories
United Kingdom

October 9, 2025 – the launch that never happened

One year ago, on this day, October 9th, 2025,

A report by DEFRA and spooks was supposed to be released, but the launch – at the Science Museum – was cancelled at the last minute. A redacted version of the report has come out.

Fiona Harvey of the Guardian has done some good reporting on this. 

Here’s my take

https://theconversation.com/a-uk-climate-security-report-backed-by-the-intelligence-services-was-quietly-buried-a-pattern-weve-seen-many-times-before-274325

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 427ppm. 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 there was supposed to be a launch of a new report by DEFRA and with support from the spooks. Then the plug got pulled, and there have been attempts to get a Freedom of Information Act request-based information about it, all this has failed. The British state is utterly incapable of being democratic or transparent, and it will be no better under Andy Burnham. I’m saying, I’m narrating this in early July before he has become Prime Minister, it’ll be hitting your eyeballs, obviously, on October the ninth, and we’ll find out if I was right. 

The specific context was the COP was coming up and the British didn’t want to embarrass the hosts, Brazil.

What I think we can learn from this we are utterly doomed.

What happened next – we continued to be very very stupid.

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 9, 1979 – Hermann Flohn warns Irish of “possible consequences of a man-made warming”

October 9, 1991 – Greens get labeled religious fanatics, don’t like it. 

 October 9, 2006 – “Australia Responds” report about climate aid and refugees released (Spoiler, Australia didn’t in fact respond).

October 9, 2006 – @AlboMP calls for International Coalition to accept #Climate Refugees

Categories
United Kingdom

September 23, 1983 – Royal Society Members protest Thatcher’s Admission

Forty three years ago, on this day, September 23rd, 1983,

Forty-four members of the Royal Society, the world’s oldest scientific academy, have protested the election of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as a fellow, claiming her cost-cutting government has damaged science in Britain.

A spokesman for the 968-member academy confirmed press reports Friday that 44 fellows, including six Nobel laureates, wrote the society’s president, Sir Andrew Huxley, saying the Conservative prime minister’s election to the academy implied “support of a political position.”

Anon, 1983. Royal Society Members Protest Thatcher’s Admission. The Associated Press, September 23,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 343ppm. 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 the Royal Society has been around for literally centuries.  

The specific context was was that Margaret Thatcher had some training as a chemist, and it was politically astute in the context of trying to keep the science budget protected to offer her membership of, or fellowship, or whatever you want to call it, of the Royal Society, not on the basis of any great scientific accomplishment, but just from straightforward emotional bribe around politics viewpoint. 

What I think we can learn from this is that honorary fellowship membership, whatever, of these organisations is contested.

What happened next Thatcher got the bribe. In 1988 gave a speech about the science budget, but also about climate change at Fishmongers Hall.

In 2006 the Royal Society wrote an unusual public letter telling Exxon to knock it off with the climate denial. 

Of late the controversy has been around Elon Musk and whether his fellowship of the Royal Society should be removed for, well, countless reasons. 

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 23, 1986 -Joe Biden suggests urgent #climate action…

September 23, 2007 – “Climate “clever” fools no-one…

September 23, 2013 – Media Watch versus climate denialists …

September 23, 2014 – Obama gives a wonderful speech about climate change. We are saved.

September 23, 2022 – Ad company says no to fossil fuels (spoilers -no, it doesn’t)

Categories
United Kingdom

September 18, 1970 – “UNA to discuss pollution”

Fifty six years ago, on this day, September 18th, 1970,

A branch of the “United Nations Association” is holding a meeting about pollution.

“The increase in the use of combustible fuels  has led to a 10 per cent increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last century.  By 2000 AD the increase could be 25 per cent. The consequences of so much CO2 in the atmosphere  upon world weather and climate are uncertain, but could eventually be catastrophic, claim some reports. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 325ppm. 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 1968-69 around the world environment concerns were growing. The UK had had the Torrey Canyon in ‘67. In late 1969 Frank Fraser Darling’s Reith lectures had set a cat cat amongst the pigeons (see telegraph report and economist editorial).

The specific context was, with a new Department (of the Environment) being formed, we see an United Nations Association organising a talk, and yes, on the agenda is carbon dioxide build-up. 

What I think we can learn from this is that people have known about this problem, and people have urged politicians to take action and urged society to take action and it has not worked, it did not work

What happened next we have trapped so much heat and poured stored up so many consequences for ourselves the Fafocene is just beginning.

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 18, 2004 – Australian States back ETS plan

September 18, 2013 – Abbott’s wrecking ball starts swinging

September 18, 2013 – Feeble denialists launch feeble denialist “report”

September 18, 2013 – Greenpeace try to occupy the “Arctic Sunrise.”

Categories
United Kingdom

September 9, 1971 – enthusiasm for modelling

Fifty five years ago, on this day, September 9th, 1971,

“Whereas Bray had been highly sceptical of the World model, [UK Chief Scientific Advisor Alan] Cottrell had been enthused by its demonstration. Returning to Britain, he proposed that the British government develop a similar model, stating his belief that ‘Forrester’s approach is the most important development of its kind since Keynes’ general theory’.(117)

Given the centrality of Keynesianism in post-war economic policy, this was a significant claim. Heath, as his early enthusiasm for management science had revealed, had some interest in forecasting and simulation, and gave his permission for a scoping study on the feasibility of a British world model. Cottrell held a meeting on the subject at the Cabinet Office in September 1971, in which he had told the assembled civil servants that developing a global model for British purposes would require £50,000 and four staff. In response, an unnamed civil servant argued that the Treasury had a more sophisticated econometric model that it used for forecasting. Despite this criticism, the general idea of a global environmental model was well received, and further work was proposed.118 

Thomas Turnbull, 2018 – Project MUSE – Histories of Technology, the Environment and Modern Britain

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 326ppm. 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 it was obvious that there were significant environmental and economic challenges around not just energy provision, but well, everything.

The specific context was that the British state knew about the impending Limits to Growth report, and the chief scientist, Alan Cottrell, was interested. There had been a leak in the Observer already about the limits report, so this is in the context of mandarins and technocrats trying to figure out if these tools will be helpful to them. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the Limits to Growth report was influential before it was even published, and then derided as Malthus with a computer, because apparently human ingenuity will conquer all.

What happened next The chief scientific adviser after Cottrell, or the one after the one after Cottrell, was John Ashton, and he did raise the climate issue, but unfortunately the political leaders were simply not interested, and it waited until 1988 before the climate problem became an issue.

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 9, 1947 – The Daily Worker talks about melting the ice-caps

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

September 9, 1971 – of Australian Prime Ministers and American scientists…

September 9, 1990 – classic (?) film Mindwalk released

September 9, 1997 – “Global Climate Information Project”

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
United Kingdom

August 29, 1983 – Robin Page, in Daily Telegraph, worries about carbon dioxide build-up

Forty three years ago, on this day, August 29th, 1983, a gardening correspondent points to carbon dioxide build-up in his Daily Telegraph column…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 343ppm. 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 was that newspapers had been reporting on the potential danger of carbon dioxide build up for decades, by this point there was quite a lot of activity in the 1980s, before Hansen’s pivotal 1988 testimony.

The specific context: Here we see someone who is interested in gardening, and therefore the seasons, and when spring arrives, and how long summer is, and how hot it is, etc acknowledging the existence of the greenhouse effect and the potential dangers. 

What I think we can learn from this is that by the early 1980s the greenhouse effect was being acknowledged broadly. It was not particularly controversial. 

What happened next finally in 1988 the scientific problem became a political issue. However, we failed to act in a sane or self-preservation style, and have now condemned ourselves, future generations, and most of the other species on this planet to unimaginable pain and suffering. Homo “sapiens” my extraordinarily fat arse.

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 29, 1981 – New York Times editorial “Heating up the Atmosphere”

August 29, 1990 – The Australian mining and forestry industries threaten to spit the dummy

August 29, 2005 – Hurricane Katrina 

August 29, 2008 – business tells Labor to go softly (Labor then does, obvs).

Categories
United Kingdom

August 28, 1976 – Talking about the weather must be more than a national pastime.

Fifty years ago today, on August 28th 1976, someone writes some sense in the (pre-Murdoch) Times.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 331ppm. 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 Times had been reporting on carbon dioxide build up. The first big example I’ve been able to find is around the 1957 IUGG conference. They published a letter the following year from someone called Peter Ball. And The Times had, like all the other newspapers in the late 60s, early 70s, run series on various forms of pollution. 

The specific context was that there was a drought going on in the UK, and a heat wave. The Times had already reported on an earlier World Meteorological Organisation statement about carbon dioxide in the world getting hotter. And here we see the fact, the intriguing fact that Crispin Tickell’s document that he’d written while at Harvard on a sabbatical was circulating in Whitehall, and there was some effort – ultimately unsuccessful – to get policy makers interested in climate.

What I think we can learn from this is that 50 years ago the British state was beginning to think about this stuff. See also John Agar’s paper.

What happened next there was a push to get carbon dioxide discussed. That push was led by people like John Ashton, the chief scientific advisor, who was working within the CPRS. And this led to the climatic change report of 1980 or published in early 1980 but Thatcher and her fellow numbskulls decided that they were not interested, and so the whole issue kind of went back into the undergrowth and it was only revived after much more work by Tickle and other nations getting into it.

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 28, 1971 – snarky opinion piece in New York Times. Stephen Schneider rebuts days later

August 28, 1977 – First Australian“Greenpeace” action, against whaling 

August 28, 2000 – Victorian power generators refuse to sign up to reduction plan, because it is sticks as well as carrots.

August 28, 2003 – EPA says Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant

Categories
United Kingdom

August 28, 1959 – Daily Mail reports on carbon dioxide build-up

Sixty eight years ago, on this day, August 28th, 1959,

Fuel fumes trap heat

“Another factor, increasing the heat and the humidity is the development of what is called carbon dioxide pollution of the atmosphere.

Years of burning coal, oil and other fuels have added considerably to this pollution – it has increased by 15 p.c. in our atmosphere in the past 50 years – and its effect is to “trap” the heat from the sun’s rays and heat radiated from the ground.” 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 315ppm. 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 1953 discussion about carbon dioxide build up had been happening in newspapers and scientific meetings. This had been triggered by Gilbert Plass in 1953. He had been building on the work of Tyndall, Arrhenius and Calendar (the work of Eunice Foote was unknown at this time). 

The specific context was that there had been some very hot summers and a Met Office head of research, Veryard was intermittently being asked for his opinion about long-term trends. Veryard had already talked on the BBC about this issue and carbon dioxide build up.

What I think we can learn from this is that the Daily Mail was reporting on this stuff and not losing its mind, but it would eventually, of course, lose its mind. 

What happened next. Veryard would go on to write more, and then it appears he moved over to the World Meteorological Organisation.

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: 

August 28, 1971 – snarky opinion piece in New York Times. Stephen Schneider rebuts days later

August 28, 1977 – First Australian“Greenpeace” action, against whaling 

August 28, 2000 – Victorian power generators refuse to sign up to reduction plan, because it is sticks as well as carrots.

August 28, 2003 – EPA says Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant

Categories
United Kingdom

August 24, 1981 – Daily Telegraph : “Floods fear as Earth gets warmer.”

Forty five years ago, on this day, August 24th, 1981,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 340ppm. 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 UK newspapers had been reporting on climate change intermittently since really the late 1960s/early 70s, and the Telegraph, which leaned right, had even had done a puff piece with German meteorologist Herman Flohn around the First World Climate Conference. The Telegraph wasn’t completely batshit at this point.

The specific context was that a study had appeared in Science magazine by James Hansen et al about CO2 build up, and the Telegraph was diligently reporting it. 

What I think we can learn from this is that we shouldn’t judge today’s terrible so-called newspapers, as the metric of what they always were. They have been hollowed out, they have been demented. They were, they were right wing, but serious. You could still learn something from them, I suppose. You still can at the margins if you try really hard. Who’s got the time, though? 

What happened next is that Hansen was punished by the Reagan administration, which took away a grant that had already been disbursed, meaning people lost their jobs, people who had relocated to take jobs. Hansen persisted, of course, and famously gave his testimony in 1988 that it was “time to stop waffling and say that the greenhouse effect was here.” (Well, that wasn’t in his testimony, that was in his comments to journalists afterwards.) The Telegraph began a long, slow, painful slide into utter crass idiocy, not even a shadow of its former self. 

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 24, 1981- “Overlapping effect of atmospheric water, carbon dioxide and ozone….”

August 24, 1989 – a Sydney council takes greenhouse suggestions on-board (or says it will).

August 24, 1992 – Bureaucrats kill greenie-business consensus on climate action

August 24, 1994 – first signs of a split in the anti-climate action business coalition…

Categories
United Kingdom

Burnham and Tice – what substantive difference, besides some hand-wringing?

I’m writing this as rain delays my departure for town. It is some of the first rain in months, and welcome.

Summer will end, and when it does, Prime Minister Andy Burnham will – I suspect – give the approval to one or both of the oil and gas projects that the extractors are currently salivating over.

It will be wrapped up in all sorts of casuistry, all sorts of presentational gimmicks (see my speculations on those – and the responses – here).

I could be wrong, the man may surprise me. We shall see.

Let’s assume he doesn’t. To me, then, the question is what is the real, the fundamental difference, on climate change, between him and Richard Tice of Reform, who recently said we should basically lie back and enjoy it?

What’s the difference? Anyone?

Sure, Burnham will look suitably sad, and perhaps even hug a few people whose homes have burned to the ground. He may loot the aid budget further to do some band-aid stuff in constituencies where some of his favourite MPs are vulnerable to a Green Surge.

But step back, think slightly longer term, bigger burning picture – what will the difference between him and Tice actually be?

Who knows, maybe this post will age like a glass of milk in a heatwave. Or maybe it’s the Burnham bounce that is the glass of milk…

See also

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/richard-tices-guide-to-sitting-back-and-enjoying-a-wildfire-20260818268736