Category: United States of America

Categories
Denial United States of America

November 16, 1995 – another skirmish in the IPCC war

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, November 16, 1995, a denialist douche-bag testilies…

On November 16, 1995, Patrick J. Michaels, an associate professor in the department of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, testified before the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, U.S. House of Representatives, on issues related to human-induced (or anthropogenic) climate change.

Gelbspan, R. (1998) Page 202

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Michaels and a small band of others had for reasons of their own and (in Michaels case, money and attention), decided to attack and smear climate science and climate scientists. And in 1995 the big effort was to attack the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to anyone who would listen. And they had enough Republican friends, especially in the House of Reps and Senate, to be able to do what the proper scientists were doing, which was create venues for discourse. 

What I think we can learn from this is that “ideal speech communities” can get hijacked and perverted by lying liars. The lying liars could never admit that they were wrong. Too demanding, emotionally.

What happened next

The attacks on the IPCC and in this case, especially Ben Santer continued, but they reached such a high vicious pitch that members of the Global Climate Coalition started to worry about their reputations and started to leave. But it didn’t matter. The denialists had won.

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.

Categories
United States of America

November 15, 1983 – “Energy Futures and Carbon Dioxide” report…

Forty years ago, on this day, November 15, 1983, an MIT and Stanford report comes out… (reported on January 3 1984 by New York Times)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 343.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that from the late 1970s, the US Department of Energy and others were funding studies of global energy demand and the climate impacts. The lead author of this report, David Rose, had been quoted in The Wall Street Journal article in August 1980 [LINK] as saying, if the build up is real, then this is serious. 

The build-up was real, this was serious. 

The report was finished on this date, and it was reported on in January of the following year by Walter Sullivan, of the New York Times. 

Meanwhile, shortly before this was finished, the EPA and the NAS had had reports out. 

What I think we can learn from this is that a hell of a lot of the serious intellectual work had been done by the early 80s. It was simply a question of getting the politicians on board that took another five years. And as soon as that was achieved, there was an enormous, virulent pushback. 

What happened next

We did not heed the warnings. The Age of Consequences is upon us and the dildo of consequence, never arrives lubed.

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.

Categories
United States of America

November 14, 2013, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s 50th #climate speech

Ten years ago, on this day, November 14, 2013, one of the two senators for Rhode Island, gives his 50th consecutive weekly speech about climate change.

2013 Sheldon Whitehouse and his weekly climate speech http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/speeches/time-to-wake-up-weekly-climate-speech

but then, “On November 14, 2013, he gave his 50th weekly Senate speech on climate change. The series of speeches highlight the science of climate change and offer paths for the United States to take strong action.”

(from wikipedia)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse had been talking about climate every week. And the broader context is that the United Nations process was slowly grinding back into momentum. In the US, Obama had only tried anything substantive in his first term. And here we are. 

What I think we can learn from this is that there are elected politicians who get it and are willing to do the hard work of alerting people.

What happened next

Whitehouse kept going. He thought he’d quit at 279 speeches, but nope…

https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/in-the-news/this-senator-thought-he-had-given-his-279th-and-final-speech-on-climate-change-he-was-wrong

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.

Categories
United States of America Weather modification

November 11, 1963 – “Is man upsetting the weather?”

Sixty years ago, on this day, November 11, 1963, the magazine US News and World Report runs a story on weather and climate.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that through the 1950s concern about weather and weather change has grown. The US had started seriously spending money on weather modification experiments..

In 1963, in March in New York, the Conservation Foundation had held a one day meeting about carbon dioxide build up and its possible consequences. So the changes in the atmosphere, the weather, these were all grist for journalists ’mill. And you could quickly cobble together a new story based on old clippings, and maybe phoning up a couple of scientists who would be happy to be quoted, because as long as you’ve got the quote right, it would make them feel important. And keep their names in the papers. Universities would be mostly happy about this. And so the weekly ravening beast that was US News and World Report continued to be fed. Am I too cynical?

What I think we can learn from this

To really understand an individual document, you have to understand the social and political context of when it was written. This is a banal statement, but one that periodically needs repeating.

What happened next

The stories kept coming. By the late 60s carbon dioxide got named a lot more. But everything still got framed around. “We don’t know what will happen because maybe dust.” That didn’t begin to change until the late 1970s.

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.

Categories
Cultural responses United States of America

November 2, 1972 – “Eco-pornography … Advertising owns Ecology”…

Fifty one years ago, on this day, November 2, 1972, the American writer and thinker Jerry Mander published an attack on image-making – 

 “Eco-Pornography: One Year and Nearly a Billion Dollars Later, Advertising Owns Ecology,” Communication Arts, November 2, 1972

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by this point, the “Malthusian Moment” of eco-fear had been well underway for three years – really from 1968/1969. And the predicted response from corporates had come to pass – lots and lots of green-tinged advertising to soothe people’s consciences as they continued to buy stuff both that they needed and stuff that they didn’t need.

This comes back to a deeper idea of “nature as Redeemer” “nature as cure,” which had long been around in Romantic thinking. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the big business moves were entirely predictable. And were predicted. But it’s still used because they still work.

What happened next

The term greenwashing was invented in the 90s. Chevron had some smiling, laughing dolphins and some seals clapping at the idea of double-hulled oil tankers. 

See also “Nulture” as a term. 

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.

Categories
United States of America

October 30, 1983 – Carl Sagan hosts ‘nuking ourselves would be bad’ conference.

On this day, forty years ago, American scientists and science communicator Carl Sagan hosted a conference on the consequences of nuclear war…

Sagan and his colleagues orchestrated the “Conference on Long-Term Worldwide Biological Consequences of Nuclear War,” held in Washington DC to garner as much public and political attention as possible. The steering committee scheduled the two-day event to begin on Halloween. On October 30, 1983, Sagan published an expose on nuclear winter in Parade Magazine, a popular Sunday newspaper supplement with more than twenty million readers. Chaired by George Woodwell and kicked off by Stanford University’s eloquent president, Donald Kennedy, the conference itself was less a scientific meeting than an extended, staged press release. A satellite link – relatively new technology in 1983 – connected an audience of several hundred scientists, journalists, and politicians to members of the Soviet Academy of Sciences in Moscow.

(Howe, 2014:139)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 343ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

Context

With the coming of the second Cold War (with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, sharpening with the arrival of Reagan and his lunatic friends), scientists started thinking about what would happen if a nuclear war happened. Even a “small one”, some thought, would burn forests, releasing huge clouds of dust that would blot out the sun, creating a “nuclear winter.”

What we can learn

Climate change from carbon dioxide has been tied up with other global atmospheric threats (real and perceived – oxygen depletion, ozone depletion, acid rain, nuclear war). There is no “clear” narrative that ignores those…

 
What happened next

There were claims and counter-claims about this, and some scientists disagreed with Sagan (notably Steve Schneider). By 1986, with the coming of Gorbachev (in 1985) and the Chernobyl disaster, it seemed less likely that a war would happen. Meanwhile, along came the Ozone hole, and then the climate stuff kicked in, post-Villach…

Categories
Science United States of America

October 25, 2000 – James Hansen writes a letter

Twenty three years ago, on this day, October 28, 2000, famed climate scientist James Hansen wrote an open letter…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369,4ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that James Hansen had not yet retired from NASA – hadn’t yet been pushed out by the Bush administration’s attempts to shut him up. He knew that the IPCC report was coming out. And he decided to do some truth telling. And here we are.

What I think we can learn from this

The problem is not the science, the problem is not the scientists. The problem is the power structures. This is nothing that radicals have been telling us that for a very long time, but the people who want to “save the world” never quite get their shit together. Here we are. 

What happened next

Hansen started getting nicked on demos, bless him.

And is still Doing The Science. Turns out there’s global warming in the pipeline – https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889

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.

Categories
United States of America

October 24, 1983 – EPA releases study on sea-level rise

On this day, 40 years ago, the US Environmental Protection Agency released the second revised edition of “Projecting future sea level rise : methodology, estimates to the year 2100, and research needs” by John S. Hoffman, Dale Keyes, James G. Titus.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 342.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measurements.

The context was that the EPA had, like others, been taking an interest in long-term effects. Long-before “the Greenhouse Effect” became a threat (finally) acknowledged by our lords and masters, smart people were doing the sums.

What we learn – nothing. We never learn anything


What happened next – the issue broke through in 1988, for what it was worth. And we have spent the 35 years since then making things worse.

Categories
United States of America

October 23, 1955 – LA Times article says “our weather is changing”

Sixty eight years ago, on this day, October 23, 1955, the Los Angeles Times ran an article on the changing weather that included mention of carbon dioxide build-up as one of the possible causes…

“Many scientists believe that the earth’s rising temperatures may be partly due to the six billion tons of carbon dioxide dumped into the earth’s atmosphere each year from the smokestacks of industrial plants…”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was that by 1955, there were more and more of these stories because the weather seemed to be changing. And we were taking better measures (not yet satellites, obviously). And talk of “weather modification” (especially as a weapon of war) was all the rage as well. The broader context is, of course, that the people of Los Angeles had more immediate air pollution issues on their plate, namely smog, which they wanted to believe, and were encouraged to believe came from well, anywhere, but the motor car.

(note to self – this was 8 days after the Macleans Magazine article by Berrill; did they just clip it and get a react quote from George Kimble?]

)What happened next

There would be more and more carbon dioxide stories for two years, to the late 50s. And then, oddly, because it was no longer speculation, because it was fact, the whole thing became less newsworthy (especially without the International Geophysical Year hook).

Btw one of the people cited in this article (George Kimble) wrote a 1962 article in the New York Times.

What I think we can learn from this

And I suppose it’s the speculation, “the competing theories” that help a journalist pad out a story and leave the reader with a sense of being informed about an ongoing scientific controversy. Once it’s over, well, the reader then would be focusing on “what can we do?” And certainly on carbon dioxide, not much is the answer, whereas there is a bewildering plethora of solutions for nitrogen, sulphur, etc. See, the “Breath of Life” book published in 1965.

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.

Categories
United States of America

October 22, 1969 – Edmund Muskie mentions CO2 build up 

Fifty four years ago, on this day, October 22, 1969, an article by Edmund Muskie, a senior American politician (someone seen as a contender for president, and had been the prospective VP on Hubert Humphrey’s ticket in 1968) was published. Muskie was aware of the issue (as were many others, including Daniel Patrick Moynihan).

22 Oct 1969 Edmund Muskie article- ENVIRONMENTAL JURISDICTION IN THE CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE – published which includes the following – “The increased use of fossil fuels affects not only local environments but the global environment as well. The increased introduction of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere contributes to the greenhouse effect, raising temperatures.” 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

A couple of months earlier, Daniel Moynahan had raised the question to a higher level with his memo which Muskie may or may not have seen. But Muskie would have been aware, presumably, that from a foreign policy perspective the US were trying to create the environment as a separate entity which they could dominate (Nixon had given a speech about it to the North Atlantic Council in April 1969, hoping people would just stop talking about the napalming of babies). The UN Secretary General U Thant was speaking about the issue by June 1969. 

See also ”Arming Mother Nature”

What I think we can learn from this is that from 1968-69 senior politicians in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, we’re talking about fossil fuels causing catastrophic climate change. This is far earlier than I think most people understand.

What happened next

I think Muskie made a bid to be the Democratic nominee and if I recall, rightly, his mental health history talked against him.

MUSKIE WAS CARTER’S SEC OF STATE AT THE END. NAME IS ON THE GLOBAL FUTURE TIME TO ACT REPORT

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.