Category: United Kingdom

Categories
United Kingdom

Suppressed reports: the government IS lying about climate change , but not in the way the denialists think – it’s far worse

The tl;dr “Governments are indeed lying to you about climate change – but not in the way the deniers claim. The situation is not better than we are told. It’s actually far worse.”

That’s a line that didn’t quite survive in my latest Conversation piece, which you can read here.

A UK climate security report backed by the intelligence services was quietly buried – a pattern we’ve seen many times before

Meanwhile, here’s a scrape of the Bluesky thread I did alongside it.

First,

@thierryaaron.bsky.social had a very good thread on two easy bad misreadings of this.

You may’ve seen coverage of a new report on the threat to national security from environmental collapse.A common response that’s got my goat is: “Look, it’s not just tree-hugging enviros saying this, it’s hard-nosed spooks!”A short thread on why this framing is bad history & bad politics🧵😡😉

— Dr. Aaron Thierry (@thierryaaron.bsky.social) 2026-01-24T04:42:37.737Z

Next, I’d add the point that there is a (largely unjustified) mystique around military assessments. They can be wrong, not just for budget-grubbing (threat inflation) reasons, but because they’re written to grab attention. See this from 2004.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

Then, well, what is to my mind a key point got axed from my Conversation piece. The 1st British PM to be formally briefed abt climate change was… drumroll… Margaret Thatcher, in mid-1979. She responded with an incredulous “you want me to worry about the weather?”

https://archive.org/details/margaretthatcher0000camp_o3c1/mode/2up?q=%22worry+about+the+weather%22

Ultimately though, all the warnings, with all the graphs and precision and passion and the rest of it don’t amount to a hill of beans in this cooking world unless there are broad-based, non-co-optable, non-exhaustible and – frankly – radical social movement organisations that can help people deal the feelings of anger and despair any rational human who can read a Keeling Curve and understand its implications feels. Without those social movement organisations, you get spasms, disavowal & acting out. But action? Not so much.

Further reading on this (and please add more!)

Chambers, R. 2026. The national security assessment on ecosystem collapse is a government wake-up call – Inside track

Hudson, M. 2023. Extinction Rebellion says ‘we quit’ – why radical eco-activism has a short shelf life

Monbiot, G. 2026 The UK government didn’t want you to see this report on ecosystem collapse. I’m not surprised | George Monbiot | The Guardian

NEF National Emergency Briefing.

Read, R. 2026. Why did government try to hide climate report? Eastern Daily Press, February 3

Categories
Science Scientists United Kingdom United States of America

January 28, 1990 –  Stephen Schneider and the dirty crystal ball.

Thirty six years ago, on this day, January 28th, 1990.

Another reviewer of the Gribbin book, William Goulding (The Sunday Times, 28 January, 1990), quotes the late climate scientist and climate science communicator Stephen Schneider as saying: “scientific predictions are like ‘trying to gaze into a dirty crystal ball. By taking time to clean the glass you can get a better picture; but at some point it is necessary to decide that the picture is good enough to alert policy makers and the general public to the hazards ahead. That point has certainly been reached with studies of the greenhouse effect and the prospect of rising sea levels in particular.’” Unfortunately, that point seems to be forever receding into the future… 

https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2018/08/11/groundhog-day-in-the-hothouse

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been measuring the impact of human activities, whether it was on air pollution, water pollution, ozone depletion, you name it, and had been trying to figure out how to raise the alarm without being called alarmist, and pondering where, when and how to speak out. 

So you have the famous Shelly Rowland quote 

“What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?”

Stephen Schneider was among them. In 1971 famously, he had co-authored a paper that got taken up as a when’s the new ice age happening, kind of thing to the dismay of some of his colleagues. I think it’s fair to say that Schneider leaned in. In 1976 he published the Genesis Strategy, He’d been on Johnny Carson (TV show). See also his efforts around the First World Climate Conference (Science as a contact sport)

The specific context was that the IPCC’s first assessment report was due out. (The IPCC had had its first meeting in November 1988). Meanwhile negotiations were clearly at some point going to begin for an international climate treaty. So here is Schneider, who was a very smart man, very thoughtful, trying to figure out when you pull the big lever. 

You can also see him tackling the same issues about 10 years prior, in a 1979 Panorama video. I would love to know when this video was; I haven’t been able to track it down.

Stephen Schneider in 1979

What I think we can learn from this is that scientists get flattened by industry and their paid attack dogs (and also by useful idiots).

What happened next

Schneider kept on trucking – his death was a huge huge loss

See also this from July 14 1988 Los Angeles Times –

Ozone Warning : He Sounded Alarm, Paid Heavy Price – Los Angeles Times

The interest was gratifying but more than a little ironic. “They won’t admit it but this means some kind of ban has been lifted,” Rowland said.

For as Rowland and others recount it, ever since 1974, when he and UCI postdoctoral fellow Mario Molina first theorized that the Earth’s protective ozone layer was being damaged by synthetic chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), Rowland has paid a price for his ideas.

In part, that’s because Rowland didn’t just make his discovery, write up the results and quietly return to his lab.

Instead, shocked by the implications of his research, he took an unusual public stance–doggedly telling reporters, Congress, half a dozen state legislatures, and just about anyone who seemed interested that ozone loss could lead to skin cancer and catastrophic climatic change. And, again and again for more than a decade, he urged that CFCs be banned.

In doing so, Rowland took on a $28-billion-a-year industry whose products, ranging from home insulating materials to solvents for electronic equipment, have become an essential part of modern life.

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: 

January 28, 1969 – Santa Barbara Oil spill

January 28, 1993 – Parliament protest – “Wake Up, the World is Dying” – Guest Post by Hugh Warwick

January 28, 2013 – Doomed “Green Deal” home insulation scheme launched in the UK

Categories
United Kingdom United States of America

January 22, 1970- 747

Forty six years ago, on this day, January 22nd,1970

The Boeing 747, the world’s first “jumbo jet”, enters commercial service for launch customer Pan American Airways with its maiden voyage from John F. Kennedy International Airport to London Heathrow Airport.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that by this time, humans have been flying since 1903 and in the post war era, commercial jet liners had become to be “a thing” thanks, in part, to Boeing using money they were given by the Department of Defence to create a cargo plane to prototype – aka the 707. There were also just a lot of surplus aeroplanes and pilots with the necessary skills. So commercial aviation in the 1950s is a good example of the Great Acceleration.

The specific context was that in the 1960s it was assumed that supersonic passenger travel would become a thing. Both JFK and Lyndon Johnson signed off on proposed jetliner funding for them, etc. But it turned out physics and economics had other opinions. There were also environmental issues around, for example, sonic boom and ozone depletion. 

In the midst of this, the 747 was designed as a kind of stop gap. It would be big, not slow, but not fast, and would be rendered obsolete by the coming of not just, you know, Concorde, but the Boeing etc, equivalents.

What I think we can learn from this is that this is sometimes the standby technology that is supposed to be there for a little while. Sticks around because it is good enough. (Kind of a flying QWERTY keyboard – kind of.)

What happened next 

And as we now know, for various reasons, that never happened. And the 747 stayed with us. It continued to be built with minor modifications, like those upturned wings. I think it’s still in use as cargo, but I’m not sure that anyone is still flying them for passengers because they’re heavy and out of date. Nope – there are still, as of Jan 2025, four airlines still using them! Which Airlines Still Fly The Boeing 747 On Its 55th Flight Anniversary?

I travelled on it a lot (never upstairs!) and it did the job. And in some ways, it was elegant. There’s all the airport films in the 70s. There’s this explosion, the bringing down of the Lockerbie plane, and of course, KAL-007

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

January 22, 1992 – “Greenhouse action will send Australia to the poorhouse”

January 22, 1995 – UK Prime Minister John Major told to implement green taxes on #climate

January 22, 2002 – Exxon and on and on

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom

January 17, 2016 – CCS running out of steam?

Ten years ago, on this day, January 17th, 2016 the Financial Times reports on the aftermath of the Conservative government’s decision to pull funding (£1bn) for carbon capture and storage.

Scott, M. 2016. Carbon capture at risk of running out of steam. Financial Times, 17 January. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/91726a24-a4be-11e5-a91e-162b86790c58.html#ixzz3xVjZrV00

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 401ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

 The broader context was that carbon capture and storage had first been mooted in the late 1970s (and was regarded sceptically).  It had had a brief moment in the late 1980s, and then disappeared into the undergrowth.

The specific context was that after a failed first CCS competition (2007-2011) another one had been set up. Companies were to compete for a billion quid. Then, abruptly, Chancellor George Osborne killed that. 

What I think we can learn from this is that technologies go through ups and downs.  CCS is a proper roller-coaster. You can read all about it here. (Hudson, 2024)

What happened next

The CCS band-wagon had its wheels put back on, a new axle etc, between 2016 and 2018.  Enormous amounts of money are being spent.  CO2 savings? Not so much…

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

January 17, 1970 – The Bulletin reprints crucial environment/climate article

January 17th – A religious perspective on climate action

January 17, 2001 – Enron engineers energy “blackouts” to gouge consumers

Categories
United Kingdom

January 12, 1989 – Thatcher ponders linking aid to preventing deforestation

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, January 12th,1989 – British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher meets with her Foreign Secretary and others to discuss climate policies- 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was the UK is, historically, a huge polluter. Of course.

The specific context was that Thatcher had set off the “Greenhouse Effect” discussion among policy types in September 1988, with a speech to the Royal Society. (Scientists had been trying for years to alert politicians).  Some (James Goldsmith etc) wanted to try to link foreign aid to reduced deforestation. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was opposed, and eventually won the day.

What I think we can learn from this is that if you really want to know what went on, you can read the memoirs, but you just have to wait for the archives to open, without ever trusting those archives to give you a full/accurate picture.

What happened next

The proposal to tie aid to stopping deforestation did not get past its opponents, who included the FCO.

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

January 12, 1995 – Australian carbon tax coming??

January 12, 2006 – the nuclear option, yet again

January 12, 2008 – Australian mining lobby group ups its “sustainability” rhetoric #PerceptionManagement #Propaganda  

Categories
United Kingdom

December 30, 1931 – Robert Innes and climate change

Ninety six years ago, on this day, December 30th, 1931,

On Wednesday December 30 1931, Dr Robert Innes an astronomer and meteorologist gave a speech at a meeting of the British Astronomical Association, pointing to carbon dioxide released when coal and petrol were burned as a cause of current and future warming.

Anon, 1931. No More Cold Winters. News Chronicle, December 31, p.1

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 308ppm. 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 Arrhenius’s theory of carbon dioxide build-up had been dismissed by some. Others still thought it had merit (reader, it did).

The specific context was that Innes was a fascinating, self-taught figure. He also seemed to have thought that carbon dioxide from comets was a cause of the warming.

What I think we can learn from this – carbon dioxide was being mentioned a reasonable amount. It’s not clear Guy Callendar knew about/paid attention to Innes…

What happened next – Innes died a couple of years after this, before Callendar’s pivotal (in retrospect only) presentation to the Royal Meteorological Society in early 1938.

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: 

December 30, 1957 – a letter from Gilbert Plass to Guy Callendar

December 30, 1976 – President Jimmy Carter is lobbied about #climate change

December 30, 1997 –  “How seriously should we take the greenhouse effect?” asks deeply unserious economics hack 

December 30, 2006 – “Industry snubs climate strategy”

December 30, 2007 – Bert Bolin dies.

Categories
United Kingdom

December 20, 1969 – The Economist editorialises on carbon dioxide build-up

Fifty-six years ago today, the heavy-weight magazine The Economist editorialises on environment, and CO2 build-up

“You might even say that something encouragingly like a constructive panic is on.”

But one is left with the fear that the massed ranks now setting out to do battle against the pale horsemen of this new apocalypse may end up trampling one another to death. Now that it is legitimate to be against motherhood “environment looks like becoming a battle-cry that will be both unchallengeable and universally fashionable.”

Mr Moynihan… has been leaning rather heavily on such suggestions as that, by the year 2000, the level of the oceans could rise by ten feet as a result of the increased carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. This content has, indeed, already been increased by 10 per cent by the use of coal and oil fuels (each transatlantic airliner puts a hundred tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere); and the restoration of the balance by photosynthesis in plant life on land and in the sea may be increasingly jeopardised by human spoliation of the environment. But scientists have been unable to agree in predicting the long-term effects of a fouler atmosphere on the earth’s surface temperature, and hence on the sea level.

What is agreed is that we are destabilising the balance of nature in this and other ways, and that where remedies are available they will mostly require action on an international scale.

The mess we are making now could have catastrophic effects not upon a distant posterity – assuming that there is going to be any such thing – but within a few decades.

But even the foggiest words are a less alarming additive to the atmosphere than an excess of carbon dioxide. For one forceful exposition of what it is all about, those who did not hear Dr Fraser Darling’s lectures might well read them in the Listener or in book form; for another, they may be referred to a remarkable book which was originally published in Sweden three years ago and which is credited with having inspired the subsequent Swedish drive to bring the whole problem to the forefront of international discussion. Some day we may all have cause for gratitude to these prophets of avoidable doom. 

Anon, 1969. Of Muck and Men. The Economist, December 20, p.15

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 324ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Guy Callendar, who had bravely done the work in the 1930s was sadly not around to see this – he had died five years earlier. But by then others had taken up the fight, and tv programmes (including a couple by the late great Roy Battersby) had introduced it to UK audiences.

The specific context was that by 1969, “everyone” was talkin’ pollution, and editors must have known that the Wilson government was about to set up a (standing) Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

What I think we can learn from this – the British elites (political, economic) knew what might be coming by 1969.

What happened next – the carbon dioxide fear got kicked by Frank Ireland, the Alkali Inspector, the following August.

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: 

December 20, 1961 – UNGA resolution on outer space and weather modification 

December 20, 1969 – AGU on climate change… –

December 20, 1983 – Documentary on “the Climate Crisis” shown

December 20, 2007 – UK opposition leader David Cameron gives clean coal speech in Beijing…

Categories
United Kingdom

December 19, 1982 – BBC on “the State of the Planet”

Forty three years ago, on this day, December 19th, 1982,

Horizon BBC Two Sun 19th Dec 1982, 15:20 on BBC Two England

The State of the Planet

This year 100 world authorities on the environment met in London; their task, to assess progress in the ten years since the first major UN Environment Conference in Stockholm.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 341ppm. 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 yes, the big Stockholm “save the earth” conference was ten years ago. There were some signs of progress on some issues (lead in petrol, etc) but clearly other problems were growing.

The specific context was – the international bureaucracy loves an anniversary – another chance for more reports, more meetings, more pledges.

What I think we can learn from this – we knew plenty a very long time ago. The best time to slam your foot on the brakes is before the bus goes off the cliff.

What happened next – the facts kept getting told. And ignored. By the late 1980s, for a variety of reasons, they became unignorable. BBC Horizon kept making programs about this.

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: 

December 19, 1988 – the launch of “Ark”

December 19, 1991- Will UN negotiations go as usual and “commit us to global catastrophe”?

December 19, 2010 – CCS dies in Queensland

December 19, 2017 – BHP exits World Coal Association.

Categories
International Geophysical Year United Kingdom

December 16, 1957 – Met Office discusses Atmospheric Chemistry at RSA – CO2 build up “might be disastrous” (in a few centuries).

Sixty eight years ago, on this day, December 16th, 1957, there was a Meteorological Office discussion of Atmospheric Chemistry at the Royal Society of Arts.

And

“If carbon dioxide continued to be generated by human activities at the present rate, and if it all remained in the air, there would be a change in the world’s climate which within a few centuries might be disastrous.”

(see 1958 Meteorological Magazine)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 315ppm. 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 the Met Office has been around for yonks! The Royal Society of the Arts is somewhat older.

The specific context was that the International Geophysical Year was underway, with a lot of data analysis to come…

Even before the data was collected, however, there was knowledge that there might be trouble ahead.

NB John Sawyer was present (more on this later).

What I think we can learn from this – The IGY generated a lot of things to talk about!

What happened next

The Met Office didn’t start getting seriously interested in carbon dioxide until 1976…

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: 

December 16, 1991 – European Energy Charter becomes a Thing

December 16, 2002 – another knee-capping for renewable energy in Australia…

December 16, 2004 – “2 degrees of warming to be a catastrophe”

 December 16, 2008 – “The Australian” attacks on climate change

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

December 15, 2008 – police smears about Climate Camp exposed

Seventeen years ago today, December 15 2008, the late John Vidal writes up the facts in an article titled “Those Kingsnorth police injuries in full: six insect bites and a toothache”  

When climate camp protesters descended on the site of the Kingsnorth power station for a week-long summer demonstration, the scale of the police operation to cope with them was enormous.

Police were accused of using aggressive tactics, confiscating everything from toilet rolls and board games to generators and hammers. But ministers justified what they called the “proportionate” £5.9m cost of the operation, pointing out that 70 officers had been injured in the course of their duties.

But data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act puts a rather different slant on the nature of those injuries, disclosing that not one was sustained in clashes with demonstrators.

Papers acquired by the Liberal Democrats via Freedom of Information requests show that the 1,500 officers policing the Kingsnorth climate camp near the Medway estuary in Kent, suffered only 12 reportable injuries during the protest during August.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/dec/15/kingsnorth-climate-change-environment-police

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 386ppm. 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 those agitating for crazy ideas, like (checks notes) an end to slavery, votes, votes for women etc etc are always ignored, and once they can’t be ignored are repressed and smeared. That’s just the way it is.

The specific context was that Climate Camp had been allowed to run for two years already (the police were well aware of the plans to take the Drax site, since those discussions were held in the flat of one of the Spycops). Probably by now they were getting bored, and the SDS was being closed down. So, time to up the harassment (confiscating board games, blasting music at 3am etc etc) and also try to smear the activists with the help of a credulous/compliant media.

What I think we can learn from this – you shouldn’t straight up believe everything you read in a newspaper, even (especially if?!) it comes from an “official source.”

In the words of the journalist Nicholas Tomalin – “they lie, they lie, they lie.” 

What happened next

Same same same. Some things just don’t change.

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: 

December 15, 2005 – James Hansen versus Bush again…

December 15, 2007 – Bali COP closes with “Road Map to Copenhagen” – All Our Yesterdays

December 15, 2009 – Monbiot versus Plimer on Lateline

December 15, 2009 – Daily Express expresses its irresponsibly idiocy…