Category: United States of America

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

March 17, 1982 – An overview of US carbon dioxide/climate research is written. 

Forty four years ago, on this day, March 17th, 1982

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that since 1977, at the beginning of the Carter Administration, there had been workshops, seminars, conferences etc. By 1982 A LOT was known. 

The specific context was that this research was having precisely zero impact on policymakers, who were Reaganaut nutjobs

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew plenty and that we had our chances and we blew them.  

What happened next. The emissions kept climbing. And climbing. And so did the concentrations. 

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: 

March 17, 1976 – UK Weather boss dismisses climate change as “grossly exaggerated”

March 17, 2006 – Rio Tinto says “CCS is key to cutting greenhouse gases.” Oops, then…

March 17, 2007 – Edinburgh #climate action gathering says ‘Now’ the time to act

 March 17, 2014 – Carbon Bus sets off to the North

Categories
United States of America

March 12, 1970 – After the Goldrush

On this day, March 12, 1970,

Slides that ✨ shine ✨

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 the 60s had happened. Everyone was questioning, well, everyone, a few of the young, were questioning the myths that they’d been brought up on. One of those myths was of painless economic progress that would not damage the planet. By the late 60s, air pollution was getting so bad that this was mocked, and also oil pollution, for example, well, the Torrey Canyon, but also the more consequential Santa Barbara oil spill of January, 1969. LINK

The specific context was that people like Neil Young were just tapping into that sense of menace and danger.

Songs on the album were inspired by a screenplay written by Dean Stockwell and Herb Bermann also titled After the Gold Rush. The screenplay’s plot involves an apocalyptic ecological disaster that washes away the Topanga Canyon hippie community. Stockwell, a lifelong friend of Young, was also part of the Topanga Canyon artist culture of the time. Mutual friend Dennis Hopper encouraged Stockwell to write his own screenplay in wake of Hopper’s success with Easy Rider. Stockwell recalls writing the script:

Dennis very strongly urged me to write a screenplay, and he would get it produced. I came back home to Topanga Canyon and wrote After The Gold Rush. Neil was living in Topanga then too, and a copy of it somehow got to him. He had had writer’s block for months, and his record company was after him. And after he read this screenplay, he wrote the After the Gold Rush album in three weeks.[10]

Young recalls coming in contact with the script in his 2012 memoir Waging Heavy Peace:

When I returned to Topanga, Dean Stockwell came by the house with a screenplay called After the Gold Rush. He had co-written it with Herb Bermann and wanted to know if I could do the music for it. I read the screenplay and kept it around for a while. I was writing a lot of songs at the time, and some of them seemed like they would fit right in with this story. The song “After the Gold Rush” was written to go along with the story’s main character as he carried the tree of life through Topanga Canyon to the ocean. One day Dean brought an executive from Universal Studios to my house to meet me. It looked like the project was going to happen, and I thought it would really be a good movie. It was a little off-the-wall and not a normal type of Hollywood story. I was really into it. Apparently the studio wasn’t, because nothing more ever happened.[11]

After the Gold Rush – Wikipedia

In his 2012 biography Young reportedly gave a different explanation of the song’s origin and meaning, describing the inspiration provided by a screenplay of the same name (never produced), which apocalyptically described the last days of California in a catastrophic flood. The screenplay and song’s title referred to what happened in California, a place that took shape due to the Gold Rush. Young eventually concluded that:

After The Gold Rush is an environmental song… I recognize in it now this thread that goes through a lotta my songs that’s this time-travel thing… When I look out the window, the first thing that comes to my mind is the way this place looked a hundred years ago.[4]

After the Gold Rush (song) – Wikipedia

What I think we can learn from this is that this song is an absolute banger. I listen to it all the time

What happened next  Neil Young is still around!

Neil Young – Wikipedia

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: 

March 12, 1974 – Clean Coal advert in the Wall Street Journal

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

March 12, 2023 – the opera ain’t over, but the fat lady is warming up

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

March 7, 1980 – Carbon Balance in Northern Ecosystems and the Potential Effect of Carbon Dioxide Induced Climatic Change

Forty six years ago, on this day, March 7th, 1980,

Carbon Balance in Northern Ecosystems and the Potential Effect of Carbon Dioxide Induced Climatic Change

Report of a Workshop, San Diego, California, March 7-9, 1980 

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31822007443104&seq=7

and 

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Carbon_Balance_in_Northern_Ecosystems_an/cb0JAQAAIAAJ?hl=en

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was by about 1976-77 especially people within the senior levels of the United States science establishment – I’m thinking specifically of Alvin Weinberg, but it’s not just him – were really thinking hard about climate change from carbon dioxide build-up. So perhaps one of the key documents that I need to think about more is the August 1976 report from Oak Ridge. 

Anyway, there had been the Miami Beach meeting in 1977 and now more and more conferences and meetings, scientific workshops, all in the hope that the politicians could be persuaded to take it all seriously. And at this point, of course, the idea of synfuels were still in the mix as a response to the second oil shock. 

The specific context was that the first world climate conference had happened, and there was money from the Department of Energy for these sorts of workshops.

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew enough in 1980 to be taking action (as per the CO2 Newsletter).

What happened next. More meetings. The crucial event was the election of Ronald Reagan that basically put the kibosh on all the effort, or most of the political policy efforts within the US.

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: 

March 7, 1988 – “We are ratcheting ourselves to a new warmer climate” 

March 7, 1991 – Australian Labor Party bragging about its green credentials…

 March 7, 1996 – Australia hauled over coals for its definition of “equity” #auspol

March 7, 2001 – CNN unintentionally reveals deep societal norms around democracy

March 7, 2012 – George Christensen and his culture war hijinks.

Categories
Denial Science Scientists United States of America

March 6,1996 – Michael McCracken testimony about “skeptic” scientists

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 6th, 1996,

“On March 6, 1996, Michael MacCracken submitted prepared testimony to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives. One part of that testimony addressed recurring criticism by the skeptic scientists of IPCC findings that corroborate increased atmospheric warming and attribute that increase to human emissions of greenhouse gases”.

Gelbspan, R. (1998) Page 198

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was  with the coming of the climate issue in 1988, the denial campaigns had cranked into gear. Initially it was attacks on James Hansen, but by 1989 it had spread thanks to outfits like the George C Marshall Institute, which had been set up to shill for Star Wars, the Space Defence Initiative, and outfits like Western Coal Association and the “Information Clearinghouse on the Environment.” Things had really cranked into higher gear in 1994-95 because the  IPCC second assessment report was being produced, and the denialists needed to attack it and cast doubt on it as much as they could.

The specific context was that the Second Assessment report had come out in November of ‘95 and had included the fateful phrase that humans were already exerting a “discernible” influence on the climate. I think the wording had been suggested by Bert Bolin. 

Anyway, here’s one of the good guys, Mike McCracken trying to educate congresspeople about scepticism, science, climate, etc. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the denialist campaigns are partly about rich white men wanting to stay rich. They also provide a platform for superannuated scientists like Nirenberg and Seitz and Singer to feel that they are somehow still relevant when frankly they’re not – or certainly not relevant scientifically, but somehow manage to have an enormously pernicious influence for the future of our species. 

Though, to be fair, even without the denialist campaigns, we would have probably still fumbled the ball. We’ll never know. 

What happened next. The denialist campaigns kept going. Within a year or two, they’d found what they thought was “soft target” in their ongoing “Serengeti Strategy” – Michael Mann, and the caravan went on.

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: 

March 6, 1992 – #survival emissions versus outright denial 

March 6, 2002 – ABARE cheerleads Bush. Blecch

March 6, 2009 – first “Low Carbon Industrial Strategy” announced 

March 6, 2009 – the UK gets its first “low carbon industrial strategy”

Categories
anti-reflexivity Denial United States of America

February 24, 1994 – Ted Koppel versus the lies. No contest.

Thirty two years ago, on this day, February 24, 1994,

On February 24th, 1994, ABC’s Nightline aired a news segment titled, “Is Science for Sale?” Its host, Ted Koppel, explained the piece was prompted by a conversation with then Vice President Al Gore. The segment features many prominent climate change deniers including:

The comments in this segment reflect some of the most common arguments used by climate deniers attempting to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change such as:

  1. Current science is unable to tie increases in greenhouse gases to human activities;
  2. We should rely on present observations rather than inaccurate climate models which are unable to predict future climate scenarios effectively;
  3. Climate policies are unnecessary and would hurt the economy, endanger people, and harm our way of life.

On air, Koppel reported the financial ties of his guests, largely comprised of fossil fuel entities, including consulting fees to Fred Singer from Exxon, Shell, ARCO, Unocal and Sun Oil (14:50); funding to Patrick Michaels and Sherwood Idso from the coal interest group Western Fuels Association (12:20; 13:30) ; and support of Ron Arnold’s Wise Use Movement from corporations like Exxon (5:30). The segment also included a clip of Rush Limbaugh, referred to as the “archdeacon of conservatism” boasting, “I can produce as many scientists that say there is not global warming as they can produce that say there is.” He referred to Pat Michaels as “one that I rely on” (12:15).

The segment featured environmental advocates Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund and Vice President Al Gore, however, Jerry Mahlman, previous director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was the only scientist interviewed who challenged the opinions of deniers like Fred Singer, of whom Koppel also referred to as a “scientist.”

Despite the segment’s lack of scientists representing the global consensus on anthropogenic climate change, Koppel comments:

“This is not, you understand, a close call. It’s not as though US scientists are evenly divided or even close to being evenly divided on issues like the greenhouse effect or depletion of the ozone layer. But environmentalists are concerned about even the appearance of a scientific dispute.” (6:09)

1994 02 24 Nightline Ted Koppel – https://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/1994-nightline-special-science-for-sale/

UK-EN | D7960 | Curate for cash | Home | Seller | 16×9 | 15s | .mp4

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that from 1988,eighty-nine onwards, the denialists in the United States had been pushing back as hard as they could against climate science using superannuated physicists like Nirenberg and the George Marshall Institute to muddy the waters. They had done this with significant success.

The specific context was that Bill Clinton and Al Gore had had their asses handed to them over the proposed BTU (i.e.petrol) tax and Gore was therefore probably in a bad mood about all this, and so got talking to Ted Koppel, who was one of the sort of famous news anchors and they did a full on expose of the denialist tropes/

What I think we can learn from this is that politicians have been trying to educate the public and Gore, bless him, has within the constraints of his particular ideology, done more than most. But telling people that they’ve been lied to and showing how they’ve been lied to, turns out it doesn’t work that well, because you’re asking people to admit that they fell for lies, and nobody wants to admit that they fell for lies. 

What happened next: Lies kept coming. They were convenient to believe. The lying campaign stepped up a notch around 1997 as the Kyoto negotiations were underway, and alongside the lies came the emissions, came the increasing concentrations. And I’ve already said this about 10 times this month already, so I won’t repeat myself.

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: 

February 24, 1971 – aims of the Department of the Environment

February 24, 2003 – UK Energy White Paper kinda changes the game (a bit).

February 24, 2011 – the fateful press conference of Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the Greens Bob Brown…

Categories
United States of America

February 22, 2004 – secret Pentagon report predicts apocalypse by 2024

Twenty two years ago, on this day, February 22, 2004 a report in The Observer…

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

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

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that politicians had received warnings for a long long time.

The specific context was that the Bush administration’s denial of climate science was getting more and more pushback. Meanwhile, the Pentagon was trying to perhaps find other things to talk about besides the Iraq War, which wasn’t quite going how they planned. The war had gone how they planned, the occupation, not so much so. There had been various sorts of security studies of climate impacts. It’s fairly obvious that it would not just affect geopolitics, but the ability to fight; everything, how much water soldiers needed, and on and on and on.

What I think we can learn from this is that just because it’s a military study doesn’t mean it’s not horse shit. Because the authors are trying to get more money. That’s what the author of almost any report is trying to do; more money, more attention, jobs for their mates. That’s how all of these games are played. And so if you actually look at what the report predicted 20 years hence, i.e. now it has not come to pass. So we should always be careful that just because it’s in a secret report doesn’t mean it’s in any way accurate.  

What happened next: More reports. More inaction. More despair.

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: 

February 22, 1991 – Denialist gloating about influence on Bush

February 22, 2012 – “Campaign to Repeal the Climate Change Act” holds a meeting…

February 22, 2013 – Idiotic “Damage” astroturf attempted by miners

February 22, 2020 – CO2 pipeline accident – “Like something out of a zombie movie”

Categories
Academia Coal United States of America

February 18, 2003 – “Coal Fires Burning Around the World: A Global Catastrophe”

Twenty three years ago, on this day, February 18, 2003,

This special coal fires edition of the International Journal of Coal Geology is a by-product of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) symposium entitled Coal Fires Burning Around the World: A Global Catastrophe, held on February 18, 2003 in Denver, CO. The purpose of the symposium, organized and convened by Glenn B. Stracher of East Georgia College, Robert B. Finkelman of the U.S. Geological Survey in Reston, VA, and Tammy P. Taylor of Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM, was to disclose the severity of the coal fires problem to the scientific, engineering, and lay communities and to promote interest in the interdisciplinary study of this environmental catastrophe.

http://www.sciencedirect.com.manchester.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S0166516204000096

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been measuring carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere accurately since 1958, and had been speculating about shitfuckery of monumental proportions, And from the late 70s that speculation had firmed up, there were various efforts to disprove or to test the idea significantly. For example, the Charney Report. But these had come to naught because of politicians’ ignorance and a lack of a social movement/civil society push.

It’s fairly elementary. 19th century physics, Greenhouse gases trap heat. Carbon dioxide is one, not the only greenhouse gas. If you put lots more of it into the atmosphere, you will get more heat. Take a look at Venus..

The specific context was that by 2003 it was clear that the United States, under George W Bush was not going to be any better, in fact, possibly even worse than his dad, and that there was going to be hell to pay. 

Of course, that hell would be paid, in the first instance, by all the other species on the planet, and people, mostly not rich and white and people not yet born. But hell has a way of catching up with you. And here we are in 2026. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the warnings have been endless, and there is a subset of humanity that just doesn’t give a fuck, and they are able to hire all sorts of goons, physical goons like ICE, intellectual goons like, well, frankly, most of academia, including humanities and well, it’s their planet. We just cling to the edges of it

What happened next: Bush kept being Bush. He was then, from sort of 2002-3 onwards, bigging up” technology”, which is always their answer, regardless of how implausible it is. 

And the emissions and the concentrations and the impacts they kept making themselves felt.

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: 

February 18, 1991 – Governor Bill Clinton says would give “serious consideration” to cuts of 20-30 per cent by 2004.

February 18, 2011 – Scientist quits advisor role (because ignored on climate?)

February 18, 2004 – “An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science”

Categories
Denial Science Scientists United States of America

February 10, 2006 – James Hansen on science, politics and tropical storms…

Twenty years ago, on this day, February 10, 2006

“On February 10, 2006, the Friday of the week that George Deutsch resigned, Jim spoke at a conference on politics and science, sponsored by the New School for Social Research in Manhattan. (He was added at the last minute on account of his recent notoriety.) IN a talk derived from the Keeling talk, which was now about two months old, he decided to add a brief discussion of tropical storms, because the topic was “especially relevant to this conference.”

See these two pages from Mark Bowen’s Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming.

2006 Hansen at conference on science and politics at New School for Social Research (Bowen Censoring Science page 143)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Hansen had been abused, ignored, sidelined in 1989 by the George HW Bush administration, and had basically gone back to the lab (that’s no criticism of the man, btw).

The specific context was that by 2006 the climate issue was heating up again – the Kyoto Protocol had been ratified (thanks, Russia) – so the international negotiations were “back on”, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme was underway, and Al Gore’s film was about to come out.
Last summer (2005) Hurricane Katrina had hit New Orleans, with thousands dead.

What I think we can learn from this is that the Bush regime was full of assholes.

What happened next: Hansen started getting arrested at protests about coal plants and pipelines, and has kept on with the science.

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.

See this from 2008

James Hansen and Mark Bowen on Censored Science : NPR

Also on this day: 

February 10, 1995 – Faulkner folds on carbon tax – doesn’t have the numbers in Cabinet

February 10, 2006 – The Australian Conservation Foundation tries to get governments to take climate seriously… – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Technophilia technosalvationism United States of America

February 8, 1991 –  New York Times and climate tech nonsense

Thirty five years ago, on this day, February 8, 1991 the “Grey Lady” was peddling the usual soothing lullabies…

Technology Is Found to Exist To Cut Global Warming Gases – The New York Times

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

The broader context was that “technology will fix it” is the first cry of technocrats and politicians wary of upsetting their incumbent donors.  Sometimes technology does indeed fix things – vaccines are pretty fantastic, and so many other things.  But not always…

The specific context was that the climate issue had finally broken through in 1988. By early 1991 the negotiations for an international treaty were beginning, and the US line would be “technology will fix it.”  The New York Times, one mouthpiece for this worldview, was doing its job.

What I think we can learn from this is that we are a bright species, but not quite as bright as we think, and not bright enough to see that our brightness is causing problems that our brightness might not be able to fix.

What happened next:  The Times kept peddling this credulous nonsense. People wanted to believe it, so they did.  Only by the 2020s was that particular lullaby beginning to take on fingers-on-the-blackboard characteristics.

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: 

February 8, 1956 – Roger Revelle sexes up the dossier to House Committee on Appropriations 

February 8, 1973 –  American ecologist explains carbon build-up to politicians

February 8, 1988 – BBC Horizon on The Greenhouse Effect

Categories
United States of America

January 31, 1963 – Malthus and technology, via Roger Revelle

Sixty three years ago, on this day, January 31st, 1963

At a meeting of the Federal Council on Science and Technology in 1963, Revelle, then the science advisor to Interior Secretary Stewart Udall and the chairman of the PSAC’s Committee on Natural Resources, observed “a shift from earlier ‘Malthus’ attitudes of apprehension over scarcity … to an optimism that science could help meet resources needs, but with a new concern on man’s contribution to pollution of his own environment.”195

 Revelle’s words are quoted in: Edward Wenk, Executive Secretary, Federal Council for Science and Technology, “Minutes and Record of Action,” 31 Jan 1963, I. I. Rabi Papers, LOC, Box 45, “Meetings, agenda and minutes, 1957-1972 (1),” 4.  Loetscher 2022

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was as that after World War Two, and especially from the 1950s with coming in military Keynesianism, there was an enormous explosion of economic innovation, activity growth, partly to do with pent up consumer demand from the war, growing populations, but also all the new technologies of production that had been invented during or refined during World War Two; radar, sonar, jet engines, computing, the list goes on and on. This has become known as the “Great Acceleration.”

The specific context 

So the early 60s is an interesting period, because people like Revelle are well aware of carbon dioxide build up and probably some other long-term issues, and they’re thinking about a switch over from scarcity thinking ie Malthus to cornucopia, but not a cornucopia without consequences.

What I think we can learn is that thoughtful people like Revelle were “on it”. 

What happened next. Climate change, oddly, continued  Revelle kept being relatively into climate issues

Then in his literally dying days in the early 1990s he was scammed by a failed scientist called Fred Singer, who put out a bullshit article under both their names. 

You also had Murray Bookchin tackling similar issues to Revelle here in his post scarcity anarchism essay. And, of course, Bookchin was aware of CO2 build up, as per his “Crisis in our Cities” book, published in April 1965. 

The other thing to think about is the tensions between impact science and production science.

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 31, 1979 – Alvin Weinberg’s “nukes to fix climate change” speech reported

January 31, 2002 – Antarctic ice shelf “Larsen B” begins to break up.

January 31, 1990 – Environmental Racism – then and now… Guest post by @SakshiAravind