The views of most of the attendees are in direct contradiction to the overwhelming majority of scientific research published over decades, as well as the positions of the world’s major scientific academies.
2016 Malcolm Roberts at CEI event http://reneweconomy.com.au/malcolm-roberts-joins-trumps-climate-deniers-fight-freedom-85911/
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 404ppm. 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 … I can’t even. What a species. Anti-reflexivity etc etc.
The specific context was – the moronic Tony Abbott had recently been toppled by Malcolm Turnbull, who said climate change was a thing.
What I think we can learn from this – nothing. Or rather, that there is no science so proven that there won’t be chuckleheads out there displaying their wilful ignorance.
What happened next
Ah, I will let Wikipedia deal with this
On 27 October 2017, the full High Court, as the Court of Disputed Returns, ruled that Roberts had been ineligible to be elected to the Parliament. Roberts and One Nation leader Pauline Hanson subsequently announced that Roberts would nominate as a candidate for the electoral district of Ipswich at the 2017 Queensland state election.[18] He was not elected.[19] In February 2018, it was announced that Roberts would lead the One Nation Senate ticket in Queensland at the 2019 Australian federal election. Pauline Hanson said: “Malcolm Roberts has got the reputation as a powerhouse, the empirical science man, and he’s really taken it up to members of parliament”.[20]
In September 2017, before the High Court ruling on Roberts’s eligibility, blogger Tony Magrathea initiated a High Court action alleging that Roberts had sat in the Senate while disqualified, contrary to the Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975. On 24 June 2019, the High Court found the allegation proved and ordered Roberts to pay a penalty of $6,000 to Magrathea.[21]
Re-election
With his citizenship clear, Roberts was elected to the Senate again in 2019.
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.
Twenty eight years ago, on this day, December 8th, 1997,
Al Gore, then Vice-President of the United States, there at Kyoto. And on the same day
“Senator Hill’s entrance was a bit rockier, with a smaller Australian demonstration led by Greens’ Senator Dee Margetts jostling him on his entrance to the main summit hall. Two hours after Mr Gore, Senator Hill rushed through his speech – the 16th out of 67 – in front of a half-empty hall.”
Lunn, S. 1997. US juggernaut swamps small beer at Kyoto. The Australian, December 9, p.8
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. 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 UNFCCC had been kneecapped at birth by the US refusing to allow targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries into the treaty’s text. George HW Bush said he’d boycott the Earth Summit if they weren’t removed from the draft text – and the French blinked. Everything since then has been an attempt to get some targets in. The Paris farce is the latest and the last (presumably).
The specific context was in the run up to Kyoto there were fierce public campaigns, funded by the oil companies etc, against Kyoto. Meanwhile, Australian Prime Minister John Howard had been trying to get people to accept the ridiculous position that Australia deserved special treatment (he succeeded).
What I think we can learn from this – we were doomed a long time ago.
What happened next – The US pulled out of Kyoto negotiations at the beginning of 2001. Australia followed the next year, despite having extorted an insanely generous deal.
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.
“On 6 December 2005, in a presentation to the American Geophysical Union (AGU), James Hansen stated that, “we are on the precipice of climate system tipping points beyond which there is no redemption” (Hansen, 2005, p. 8). Hansen’s warning helped initiate a tipping point trend in climate change communication that was quickly reflected in public debate. These warnings were front page news by January 2006, with The Washington Post reporting that, “[t]his ‘tipping point’ scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad…” (Eilperin, 2006, p. A01).”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. 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 James Hansen had been getting in trouble with asshole Republican administrations since 1981, when a front page story on the New York Times had led to a research grant already given being withdrawn and people losing their jobs. The George HW Bush administration had also tried to sideline/silence Hansen in the key period 1989-1992. And on and on it went.
The specific context was HW’s dumb son, “Dubya” was nominally President, but you gotta assume a lot of the direction was coming from Dick Cheney. By this time the US was having to contend with the fact that the UN process, which it thought it had rendered pointless by withdrawing from Kyoto negotiations, was “back on track” (it’s all relative) and there would be more fights to come about this.
What I think we can learn from this – Hansen is worth listening to. It’s scary af.
What happened next – Hansen took (enforced) retirement. GISS got slaughtered in 2025. The emissions kept climbing, and the Republicans stopped pretending to be anything other than devastation-bots.
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.
Forty five years ago, on this day, December 2nd, 1980,
1980 Salvadoran Civil War: Four U.S. nuns and churchwomen, Ita Ford, Maura Clarke, Jean Donovan, and Dorothy Kazel, are murdered by a military death squad.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 339ppm. 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 US has been killing people for fun and profit for centuries. It started with the local populations foolish enough to be there when whitey wanted their land. It went on and on.
Here’s Smedley Butler –
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
The specific context was that the US government was supporting the 14 families with their death (squad) grip on El Salvador.
What I think we can learn from this – as per Chomsky, you can have a society that has a high degree of freedom that is also a bloodthirsty empire. The two are not mutually contradictory.
What happened next
As per Wikipedia –
As news of the murders was made public in the United States, public outrage forced the U.S. government to pressure the Salvadoran regime to investigate. U.S. President Jimmy Carter suspended aid to El Salvador. The earliest investigations were condemned as whitewash attempts by the later ones, and in time, a Commission on the Truth for El Salvador was appointed by the United Nations to investigate who gave the orders, who knew about it, and who covered it up. Several low-level guardsman were convicted, and two generals were sued by the women’s families in the U.S. federal courts for their command responsibility for the incident.
Unlike President Carter, succeeding U.S. President Ronald Reagan favored the Salvadoran military regime; he authorized increased military aid and sent more U.S. military advisers to the country to aid the government in quelling the civil/guerrilla war.
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.
Seven years ago, on this day, November 27th, 2018, former President Obama gives a speech at Rice University:
“I was extraordinarily proud of the Paris Accords because, look I know we’re in oil country and we need American energy. And by the way, American energy production, you wouldn’t always know it, but it went up every year I was president. And you know that whole suddenly America’s like the biggest oil producer … that was me, people.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 408ppm. 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 climate change is not an issue for our lords and masters, not if it gets in the way of capital accumulation (and despite what the eco-modernists want you to believe, it does).
The specific context was that safely out of office Obama could tell it straight.
What happened next – the oil kept flowing, the emissions kept rising.
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.
Forty eight years ago, on this day, November 27th, 1978,
On this day in San Francisco, city mayor George Moscone and openly gay city supervisor Harvey Milk are assassinated by former supervisor Dan White.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 335ppm. 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 upsurge of the 1960s had led to all sorts of positive changes in US society, including the ability of openly homosexual people (men at first) to run for public office.
What I think we can learn from this – liberation comes with risks, as shown in the film Milk.
What happened next – the killer, Dan White, took his own life a few years later.
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.
Twenty nine years ago, on this day, November 22nd, 1996, freshly re-elected US President Bill Clinton is in Australia….
“Finally, we must work to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions. These gases released by cars and power plants and burning forests affect our health and our climate. They are literally warming our planet. If they continue unabated, the consequences will be nothing short of devastating for the children here in this audience and their children.
“New weather patterns, lost species, the spread of infectious diseases, damaged economies, rising sea levels: if present trends continue, there is a real risk that sometime in the next century, parts of this very park we are here in today could disappear, submerged by a rising ocean. That is why today, from this remarkable place, I call upon the community of nations to agree to legally binding commitments to fight climate change.”
Prime Minister John Howard dissed it of course – see Gordon, M. 1996. “Howard defends stand on emissions.” The Australian, November 25, p.4.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm. 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 Clinton had started his first term with promises of climate action, and then had his arse handed to him over the BTU tax.
The specific context was that Clinton had just won re-election, defeating Bob Dole, and knew that there would be fun and games ahead, internationally, because the Kyoto conference was coming up in December 1997. Given the Australian stance at COP2, it was clear there was gonna be Australian resistance and shitfuckery.
What I think we can learn from this – Clinton was not stupid. Corrupt, venal, slimy, yes. Stupid, no.
What happened next – Australia spent 1997 demanding special treatment, and got it, carving out an increase in emissions as its emissions “reductions” target.
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.
Sixty four years ago, on this day, November 17th, 1961, the Twilight Zone got ecological…
Nov 17 1961 – “The Midnight Sun” is episode 75 of the American television anthology series The Twilight Zone, first shown in November, 1961.
Opening narration
The word that Mrs. Bronson is unable to put into the hot, still, sodden air is ‘doomed,’ because the people you’ve just seen have been handed a death sentence. One month ago, the Earth suddenly changed its elliptical orbit and in doing so began to follow a path which gradually, moment by moment, day by day, took it closer to the Sun. And all of man’s little devices to stir up the air are now no longer luxuries—they happen to be pitiful and panicky keys to survival. The time is five minutes to twelve, midnight. There is no more darkness. The place is New York City and this is the eve of the end, because even at midnight it’s high noon, the hottest day in history, and you’re about to spend it in the Twilight Zone. Whether explicitly nuclear or otherwise, the apocalypse was never far away [in the Twilight Zone]. “The Midnight Sun” was telecast on the day the U.S. consolidated its drive for “push-button warfare” with the first successful launching of a Minuteman missile from an underground silo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Midnight_Sun_(The_Twilight_Zone)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 317ppm. 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 it was the early 1960s – fears of nuclear war, of war by weather modification etc was in the air (not gonna apologise). See this from LBJ, who by this time was Kennedy’s Vice-President.
What I think we can learn from this – science fiction tries to tackle this stuff. The best sci-fi is “good for thinking with.”
What happened next – the Cuban Missile Crisis etc. And the emissions, they kept climbing.
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.
Twenty seven years ago, on this day, November 12th, 1998,
“equally surprising was the last-minute volte-face by the United States at Kyoto by agreeing to 7 percent emissions cuts by 2008- 2012 instead of its previous, deeply entrenched position. Eleven months later, while public predicating U.S. commitments on “meaningful participation” from developing countries, the Clinton-Gore administration nevertheless went ahead and formally signed the Kyoto Protocol on 12 November 1998”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 367ppm. 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 US administration of George HW Bush had prevented targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries from being included in the text of the Climate Treaty. From 1995 there had been a process to get them in (“The Berlin Mandate”).
The specific context was the Kyoto meeting had taken place in December 1997. Clinton-Gore could sign it all they liked, but the chances of getting it through the US Senate were approximately zero.
What I think we can learn from this – politicians virtue-signal/cross their fingers/hope something will turn up.
What happened next – Gore probably won the 2000 election, but it was handed to George “Dubya” Bush by the Supreme Court. Bush (well, Cheney really) then pulled the US out of the Kyoto negotiations.
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.
On November 11, 1965 America received the first hint of what was to become a reality. On that night, there was a power failure. As a result, the entire Eastern Seaboard became dramatically aware of how dependent it had become on electrical energy. Shortly afterward, smaller blackouts and brownouts began to occur frequently.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 320ppm. 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 grids are higgedy-piggedythings – kludges and palimpsests, and prone to overload…
The specific context was – accidents will happen…
What I think we can learn from this – sometimes a good blackout can concentrate people’s minds? Maybe… It can also stampede them back into outdated thinking and technologies…
What happened next – more blackouts at various points. And rising emissions, obvs.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
