Category: United Kingdom

Categories
Coal United Kingdom

July 18, 1991  – “Clean Coal” says Commons Energy Select Committee. 

Thirty five years ago, on this day, July  11st, 1991, the House of Commons Energy Select Committee produces a report calling for – in the light of ‘the greenhouse effect’ – “clean coal.”

Guardian

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sr3-V4fIY8IZTvM_QIv2DA-dnOAEhjn6/view?usp=drive_link

The Times

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VWimV0nX9i33Ijg6wEl6QkFL6E4Dm8Ez/view?usp=drive_link

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. 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 environmental consequences of coal burning were, shall we say, well known, from the 19th century especially (not that 1661 had been a quiet year).


From the mid-1950s onwards, the climate implications had been spoken off here and there, but it was only in the mid-1970s on that this became a common feature of discussions.  Various people had done their best to silence the issue (looking at you, John Mason).

The specific context was in 1988 everyone had started to get het up about the Greenhouse Effect (as climate change from carbon dioxide build-up was then called). Panels and committees were established etc etc.

What I think we can learn from this We knew plenty. Clean coal is a joke, at least as far as carbon dioxide is concerned.

What happened next The British coal industry got privatised.  What expertise there was was scattered to the four winds.  The emissions kept climbing. Coal was finally kicked out of the electricity generation mix in the 2010s.

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: 

July 18, 1979 – US Senators ask for synthetic fuel implications for greenhouse warming. Told. 

July 18, 1996 – Australian Prime Minister snubs #climate talks 

July 18, 1996 – Geneva Ministerial Declaration noted but not adopted 

July 18, 2005 – inconvenient energy targets scrapped 

July 18, 2012: Climate Justice poem – “Tell Them” by Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner – hits the internet 

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

 July 17, 2022 – in case of emergency, break glass

Four years ago, on this day, July  17th, 2022

On 17th July 2022 local activist and general practitioner, Dr David McKelvey joined other healthcare professionals to carefully and symbolically crack panes of glass at JP Morgan in London. The action was shortly before the hottest day ever record in the UK; JP Morgan is the largest funder of fossil fuels in the world. The group had signs which read “In medical climate emergency break glass.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 419ppm. 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 have been urgent warnings, broadly publicised, about climate change caused by carbon dioxide build-up, since 1988.  Let that sink in. People have been born, educated, had children and those children have had children in that time.

The specific context was XR had turned up in 2018 and was going to save the world. By late 2019 it was pretty obvious that they were not, in fact, going to save the world.  The pandemic saved their blushes, but reality does continue…

What I think we can learn from this – we are stuck in the emotacycle, and we “memory wand” ourselves all the time.

What happened next

The jury would not convict.

17 Feb 26 Share: 

Six members of Health for XR unanimously acquitted of criminal damage by a jury, despite legal defences being withdrawn

Six medical professionals (doctors and nurses), all members of Health for XR, have been unanimously acquitted of criminal damage, having been charged following a protest in 2022. Health for XR is aligned with Extinction Rebellion, “a socio-political movement which utilises nonviolent resistance to avert climate breakdown, halt biodiversity loss and minimise the risk of human extinction and ecological collapse”.

In July 2022, the six medical professionals cracked windows at the European Headquarters of JP Morgan in Canary Wharf, the world’s largest financier of fossil fuels, as an intervention to try to save lives in the face of an unprecedented heatwave and the climate and ecological emergency.

All six were charged with criminal damage and first tried at Snaresbrook Crown Court in 2024. The jury, however, were unable to reach a verdict, despite all available legal defences having been withdrawn prior to trial.

The retrial commenced on 4th February 2026 and, following a nine-day trial, the jury unanimously acquitted all six defendants under four hours on 16th February 2026.

https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/six-members-health-xr-unanimously-acquitted-criminal-damage-jury-despite-legal-defences-being

This is of course entirely unrelated to the government wanting to restrict jury trials.

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: 

July 17, 1912 – Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal on climate change 

July 17, 1968 – Scoop Jackson’s colloquium 

July 17, 1991 – G7 DOESN’T talk about climate… 

July 17, 2006 – Australian Prime Minister shits on renewables, blah blah “realistic” 

July 17, 2014 – Australian elected idiot is highly visibly idiotic 

Categories
United Kingdom

July 14, 1967 – “The rights of man and the rape of his environment: a blueprint for a peaceful revolution”

Fifty-nine years ago, on this day, July  14th, 1967, Edward Mishan, had a long article in the Spectator (back when it was still a serious publication).

The rights of man and the rape of his environment: a blueprint for a peaceful revolution

Mishan, Edward J The Spectator; Jul 14, 1967;

“Of course, it happens innocently enough. Machines that are employed to produce services for some simultaneously produce ‘dis- services for others. The recipients of the services acknowledge their value by a willingness to pay for these services. Symmetrical reasoning would require that the recipients of the disservices should receive payment for absorbing these disservices. Things have not worked out this way, however. It is true that such nice calculations would not matter much in a society with only rudimentary technology and an abundance of land relative to its population but this is not the condition of Britain today. 

“With the postwar growth of technology and population these disservices or ‘spillover effects the noise, smell, smoke pollution or other noxious by-products of the operation of industry or their products have become too conspicuous to be ignored any longer by civilised countries.

They range from the strangulation by traffic of cities, resorts and once-quiet hamlets to the extermination of wild life by the indis- criminate use of pesticides; from ubiquitous jets to the spreading plague of beach transistors; from the destruction by mass tourism. of the world’s dwindling resources of natural beauty to the neighbour’s petrol lawn-mower. Indeed, together these spillover effects represent the most outstanding example of postwar growth yet recorded.”

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 the ‘diseconomies’ were steadily growing, with the coming of motorways, airport expansion etc. Yes, some things (visible air pollution in cities) seemed to be improving, but overall, the trajectory was not great. In 1961 Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring had been published. In 1966 the Conservation Society had been founded/

The specific context was a couple of months before this (but after the book had been written), the Torrey Canyon oil spill had been perpetrated….

In 1965, while at the LSE, he wrote his seminal work The Costs of Economic Growth,[2] but was unable to find a publisher until 1967.[3] In this work he expanded on his original 1960 thesis[4] which stated that the “precondition of sustained growth is sustained discontent”, warning developing nations that “the thorny path to industrialisation leads, after all, only to the waste land of Subtopia”.[5]  

What I think we can learn from this – the roots of the upsurge of environmental concern were there in the mid-1960s, in publications conservative and liberal…

What happened next

The Spectator went off a cliff. Is now edited by Michael Gove.

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

November 26, 1966 – Conservation Society first meeting

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 14, 1996 – Australian Medical Association and Greenpeace 

July 14, 2000 – Miners versus the ALP/ and climate action 

July 14, 2000 – Wind power providers want carbon labelling… 

July 14, 2011 – “Four Degrees or More: Australia in a Hot World” conference closes 

Categories
Antarctica United Kingdom

July 12, 1982 – Thatcher briefing for meeting about British Antarctic Survey

Forty four years ago, on this day, July  11st, 1982, Margaret Thatcher gets a briefing for a meeting with the British Antarctic Survey bosses. It casually mentions climatic change…

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13OYbbNL2uRDAsE9kqMZAcC40UbZFmmCb/view?usp=sharing

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 folks at the Met Office were present in late 1953 when Gilbert Plass gave another presentation about his carbon dioxide theory of climatic change. The theory was pretty well known in any case (having been pooh-poohed by CEP Brooks). Through the 50s and 60s it became better known. The trouble was, the Met Office’s boss from 1965 on, John Mason, was adamantly opposed to it.  In the late 1970s there had been a civil service effort to get the issue under politician’s noses….

The specific context was that shortly after becoming Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher was briefed on the carbon dioxide threat by her chief scientific adviser. Her response was to look at him with incredulity and say “you want me to worry about the weather?” Nonetheless, international work continued, and the problem (not yet an issue) would not go away.

What I think we can learn from this  Another reason to despise Thatcher.

What happened next

Mason retired as Met Office boss, and was replaced by John Houghton, who accepted physical reality (having first written on carbon dioxide build-up in 1965).

In late September 1988, to get ahead of an inevitable trend, Margaret Thatcher gave her speech at the Royal Society.

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

INSERT

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 12, 1953 – “The Weather is Really Changing” says New York Times

July 12, 1978 – US Climate Research Board meeting

July 12, 1996 – medics slam energy companies for outright denial and obstruction

July 12, 2007 – #Australia gets swindled on #climate change…

July 12, 2009 – NGO vs NGO – Al Gore asked to be umpire

July 12, 2011 – Tony Abbott and the The Australia Institute

Categories
Brazil United Kingdom

July 6, 1979 – Letter in the Nottingham Post about carbon dioxide build-up and “the greatest disaster in world history”

Forty seven  years ago, on this day, July 6th, 1979, a letter was published in the Nottingham Post, written by one K. Cooke, of Aspley.

“When hundreds of millions of trees are destroyed in the Amazon forests, as they have been over the past 65 years, the whole world suffers a loss of oxygen and an increase in carbon dioxide.

The deforestation of tropical rain forests and the wiping out of numerous species of animals and plants, produce harmful effects on the climate of the world and the balance of nature.

A Brazilian scientist says: “We are threatened with possibly the greatest ecological disaster in world history.”


But also, check out that advert!!

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 337ppm. 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 had been stories in newspapers (and magazines) about carbon dioxide build-up from the 1950s.  From the late 1960s, those stories started to get a bit firmer in their concerns.  Through the 1970s, scientists beavered away.  The idea that the climate was changing (either hotter or colder!) was common currency, and the 1976 heatwave/drought in Europe had got people talking. 

The specific context was that the First World Climate Conference had happened in February, and the reporting on it in the UK had usually talked about carbon dioxide build-up. By this time even Margaret Thatcher had gone public (though privately deriding the idea) because it enabled her to advocate for nuclear power (see her interview with the BBC at the G7 in Tokyo on June 29). 

What I think we can learn from this – the whole topic was tolerably well-understood by intelligent and well-informed people in the 1970s. The signal had not emerged from the noise ecologically, but smart humans can spot the patterns. The wilfully ignorant, well, not so much.

What happened next

The problem finally became an issue in 1988. Then they bullshitting and kayfabe started. 

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: 

July 6, 1972 – “Workers and the Environment” conference in London…

July 6, 1988 – Piper Alpha blows up 

July 6, 1993 – Australian bipartisanship on climate? Not really…

July 6, 2008 – Southern Cross Coalition launches “towards an effective and fair response to climate change” 

Categories
United Kingdom

June 24, 1994 – “World steels itself for action” Yeah, nah.

Thirty two years ago, on this day, June 24th, Manchester does what Manchester does best – big promises of future environmental action.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. 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 the Rio Earth Summit had happened in 1992, and Manchester had stuck its hand up to do the follow-up.

The specific context was that there were all sorts of problems (funding, ‘vision’) and the whole thing was a damp nasty squib. 

What I think we can learn is this: Manchester does cheap talk well.

What happened next:  Waves of promise making, and ignorance about previous waves on the part of both activists and (some) councillors and officers. It’s all kayfabe, innit?

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

References

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 24, 1974 – Conference on “Science and Technology for Human Development” opens in Bucharest

June 24, 1985 – Climate change rears its head at a development meeting…

June 24, 1986 – New Yorkers get to watch a documentary on “The Climate Crisis”

June 24, 2004 – UN Global Compact Summit in New York, launches ESG in “Who Cares Wins” report

June 24, 2009 – Scottish Parliament passes insufficient climate legislation; claims ‘leadership’ anyway 

June 24, 2010 – Large and small renewables

Categories
United Kingdom

June 12, 1986 – Tory MP on carbon dioxide build-up, post Chernobyl…

Forty years ago, on this day, June 12, 1986, Conservative MP David Heathcoat-Amory had this to say in his regular column in the Mid-Somerset Series…

“Pumping carbon dioxide into the air also produces a “greenhouse” effect in which the atmosphere gradually heats up (hardly noticeable this spring!) This in turn causes the ice caps to melt and the sea level to rise.

Since 1850 the level of CO2 in the air has gone up by about a quarter. Not disastrous, but certainly a worry.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 347ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. 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 the question of carbon dioxide build-up had been spoken of in mainstream media (BBC, newspapers, the Economist etc etc) in the late 1960s and early 1970s. There had been an effort to get the UK Government concerned and paying close attention in the late 1970s, but this had come up against Thatcher’s indifference/hostility.

The specific context was that by 1986, things were moving. The Villach meeting had happened, and questions around the dangers of energy production were super-live because of the then-recent Chernobyl explosion.

What I think we can learn is this: plenty of (Conservative) MPs were aware of the problem. It wasn’t yet part of a culture war.

What happened next: In September 1988 Margaret Thatcher gave a speech to the Royal Society about science funding and… the Greenhouse Effect. The issue has waxed and waned, but never gone away because (checks notes)… we are tipping billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year, and that is starting to have some of the predicted effects.

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

July 21, 1970 – Conservative MP talks about #climate

March 12, 1984 – A Conservative MP worries about carbon dioxide build-up

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 12, 1920 – “The Mad Planet” published

June 12, 1972 – At Stockholm “development” is challenged 

June 12, 1992 – Australia refuses to put a tax on carbon: “It’s a question of who starts the ball rolling. We won’t.”

June 12, 1996 – scumbag denialists smear a scientist – All Our Yesterdays

June 12, 2011 – Nazi smears used by denialists, obvs

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom

June 7, 2006 – TUC fanboys CCS

Twenty years ago, on this day, June 7th,  2006, the Trades Union Council was fanboying ‘carbon capture and storage’ because it would help create ‘Clean Coal Britain’.

www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/framework-clean-coal-britain

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm.  As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. 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 carbon capture and storage had been dreamt up as a potential techno fix solution for carbon dioxide build up in the mid 70s by an Italian physicist called Cesar Marchetti, and a certain amount of speculative work had been done in the late 70s and again in the early 90s, but the costs were prohibitive, and the technological challenges, shall we say, significant. The specific context is that after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol and finally its ratification, it became clear that technological fixes were going to be the favoured rhetorical device, if not literal device, of political and economic elites. And so you’d had things like the carbon sequestration Leadership Forum, which was just another international talking shop with a logo and press conferences. Meanwhile, in the UK, support for CCS was coalescing. 

The specific context was that the Trades Union Council and especially the miners unions and friends of miners desperately trying to interest politicians. This is under Blair, still in the mindset that carbon capture and storage can ensure that domestic coal mining can continue, and the burning of coal for electricity can continue. 

What I think we can learn is this:  there are all sorts of constituencies for a technology, and that technologies bat about for a long time before they become quote plausible, unquote or implausible, but still implemented. 

What happened next: Well, the lobbying effort worked in that in late 2007 the first CCS competition was announced by Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, at an event in London, hosted by the WWF. That competition fell apart. Another competition was launched with confidence that lessons had been learned, and then at the last minute, in 2015 Treasurer George Osborne pulled the plug ; not because he was an opponent of CCS, he just didn’t think it was important, and he wanted to be able to boast about having put more bobbies on the beat. It was that banal. And then a third competition was launched in 2018 or ‘19 or whenever. And you can read all about it in my first and last book.

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

References

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 7, 1959 – another letter about carbon dioxide build up in the Times of India

June 7, 1971 – Australians warned, on television, about ecological breakdown. #ABC

June 7, 1984 – UK diplomat pushes for more environmental action

June 7, 1989 – Money to be made from the Greenhouse, says the Fin

June 7, 1990 – Tasman Institute and a Nature letter about weathering

Categories
United Kingdom

May 30, 1980 – Report of the Climate Impact Investigations working group…

Forty six years ago, on this day, May 30th, 1980, a subgroup of civil servants is looking at climate impacts (nb this is more broad than carbon dioxide build-up, which was not, in the eyes of many, the only show in town).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that from the mid-1970s the Met Office had found it had to work harder to monopolise (or control) the debates on climate impacts for the UK.

The specific context was that by this time it was clear that the Thatcher government was supremely uninterested in questions of preparations for increased climate extremes.

What I think we can learn from this is that after you lose a battle (as the pro-action forces had in 1979-80) there is a refractory period…

What happened next. 

The issue was there in the undergrowth, growing, but did not ‘break through’ until 1988.

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: 

May 30, 1990 – Midnight Oil do a gig outside Exxon’s HQ in New York

May 30, 1996 – Denialist goons smear scientist

 May 30, 1996 – Minerals Council investment pays off, again…

May 30, 2007 – Kevin Rudd pledges to ratify Kyoto, set emissions target and create an ETS

Categories
United Kingdom

May 26, 1859 – Tyndall submits a paper

One hundred sixty seven years ago, on this day, May 26th, 1859, a paper by the Anglo-Irish scientist, John Tyndall, landed on someone’s desk at the Royal Society…

“Note on the Transmission of Radiant Heat through Gaseous Bodies.” By John Tyndall, Ph.D., F.R.S. &c. Received May 26, 1859 Royal Soc 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly zzzppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that this is the 19th century. Science is going gangbusters.

The specific context was that  you have an Anglo Irish scientist who may or may have not lifted work from Eunice Foote. We’ll never know. 

It’s not clear to me that he did, because she didn’t complain, and her allies didn’t complain, and other people who will have read her work at the time didn’t say, hey, “Tyndall’s nicking stuff.” That last point is not a slam dunk argument, of course, because you wouldn’t accuse an esteemed scientist of plagiarism or filching work, because it would not be gentlemanly, especially if he’s only if he’s pinching it from someone who is, after all, only a woman. 

What I think we can learn from this. Oh, here we are, with the CO2 levels

What happened next. Tyndall died in 1893, accidentally killed by his wife just before Svante Arrhenius did his calculations, which took him a year, and produced his famous article about “carbonic acid.”

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: 

May 26, 1978 – “Advisory Group on Climate” meeting

May 26, 1990 – Times front page about Thatcher going for stabilisation target – All Our Yesterdays

May 26, 1993 – more “green jobs” mush

May 26, 1994 – Australian #climate stance “will become increasingly devoid of substance” says Liberal politician. Oh yes