Category: United States of America

Categories
Academia United States of America

April 4, 1979 – DOE and AAS meeting

Forty seven years ago today, they’re half-way through what SHOULD have been a crucial meeting…

2-6  April Annapolis Maryland DOE and AAAS meeting on social science and climate.

CRIPSIN TICKELL PRESENT – see his October 1979 article in EUROPE

YOU HAVE DONE THIS ONE!!
April 4, 1979 – DOE and AAAS meet on social science and climate – All Our Yesterdays

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that since 1977 the Department of Energy had been hosting conferences, famously Miami Beach in March of 77 and commissioning reports about carbon dioxide build up. The Carter administration was “on it” as it were – or the Carter administration wasn’t, but people working in the DOE were. And I think a lot of this is probably down to a nuclear physicist called Alvin Weinberg. Anyway, here we are in April of 79 and the crucial things here are that 

  1. Tom Wigley of the Climatic Research Unit was present and presenting.

b) Crispin Tickell, then the consigliere for Roy Jenkins, was present at this meeting. We know this thanks to Tickell’s October 1979 article in Europe magazine.

The specific context was that by 1979 smart people were beginning to “freak out”, in a very measured and contained way.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have known for so long.  And done so little (well, made the whole shituation much worse).  

What happened next:  

Nature ran an editorial in May 1979 that namechecked this conference. The DOE asked people like Schelling to do a report on the societal implications that was released in early 1980 and whatever progress was being made towards tackling the carbon dioxide problem was halted with the coming of the Ronald Reagan gang in January of 1981 and here we are completely fine. Fuck. Risk. 

Also on this day

April 4, 1964 – Revelle’s PSAC Working Group Five

April 4, 1957 – New Scientist runs story on carbon dioxide build-up

April 4, 1964 – President Johnson’s Domestic Council on climate…

April 4, 1978 – UK Chief Scientific Advisor worries about atmospheric C02 build-up

April 4 – Interview with Ro Randal about “Living With Climate Crisis

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

 1980 – Idiotic climate paper published in Science

Forty six years ago on this day, March 26th, 1980 a truly pathetic paper found its way into the pages of Science.

Idso, S. 1980 – The Climatological Significance of a Doubling of Earth’s Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration 

The abstract ran(t) as follows. [source]

The mean global increase in thermal radiation received at the surface of the earth as a consequence of a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide content is calculated to be 2.28 watts per square meter. Multiplying this forcing function by the atmosphere’s surface air temperature response function, which has recently been determined by three independent experimental analyses to have a mean global value of 0.113 K per watt per square meter, yields a value of </= 0.26 K for the resultant change in the mean global surface air temperature. This result is about one order of magnitude less than those obtained from most theoretical numerical models, but it is virtually identical to the result of a fourth experimental approach to the problem described by Newell and Dopplick. There thus appears to be a major discrepancy between current theory and experiment relative to the effects of carbon dioxide on climate. Until this discrepancy is resolved, we should not be too quick to limit our options in the selection of future energy alternatives.

And a few weeks later, there was this exchange…

From ‘Effects of Carbon Dioxide Buildup in the Atmosphere’, Hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, April 3, 1980:

“Senator (Dale) BUMPERS. . . The fact that there has been no political response to the testimony we have had here for at least 3 years, the last 3 years, about the potential for dramatic climatic effect upon the earth by the buildup of CO2 (the point that the whole problem is such a long term problem) is well taken.

“Congress has not responded and we are getting some conflicting information too. People who have testified have not been . . . precise and definitive. …

“For example, ‘Science magazine’ on March 28 estimated that the average Earth temperature rise from doubling the world’s atmospheric CO2 is about 26 hundredths of one degree Celsius, which is about 1 tenth of the value generally estimated.

“Dr. (Gordon) MACDONALD (Chief Scientist of MITRE Corporation). Could I comment on that point?

“Senator BUMPERS. Yes.

“Dr. MACDONALD.I have looked in detail at that paper. It is a very strange paper.

“Senator BUMPERS. Shall I throw it away?

“Dr. MACDONALD. Yes. The final result is the product of two numbers. One is described very badly. The other is described as a result of the search under preparation. One can reconstruct the reasoning and do the proper calculations, and would have to multiply the second number by a factor of six, the first number by a factor of two to get the proper description, so that number is off by a factor of about 12.

“Dr. (William) KELLOGG (Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research): I quite agree with what Dr. MacDonald has said. The conclusion is based on a calculation at the surface at a point. It does not apply to the global carbon dioxide question as it stands.

“Dr. MACDONALD. That is correct.”

(Quoted in William Barbat’s wonderful CO2 Newsletter.)

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 that there are always scientists who need to be “edgy”. And that is fine, because science needs doubt, conflict etc.  But it has to be, you know, robust. Not demented.

The specific context was that Idso had form

What I think we can learn from this is that Idso was not the sharpest tool in the box. 

What happened next. Idso kept Idsoing. He’s dead now, which is a tragedy for climate 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.

References

Barbat in CO2 Newsletter

Also on this day: 

 March 28, 2001 – (Vice) President George Bush nixes Kyoto

March 28, 2010 – protestors block Newcastle coal terminal #auspol

March 28, 2017 – Heartland Institute spamming science teachers

March 28, 2017 – Trump “brings back coal”

Categories
Energy United States of America

March 28,  1984 – Exxon guy presents on CO2

Forty two years ago, on this day, March 28th, 1984, an Exxon scientist presented on climate change. 

They knew. Exxon knew.


March 28 1984  Exxon guy – Henry Shaw, Presentation to EUSA/ER&E Environmental Conference: CO2 Greenhouse and Climate Issues

7, 14 (Mar. 28, 1984), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6530733-1984-Exxon-Henry-ShawPresentation-CO2/. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 345ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Exxon, by the late 70s, was fully switched on to the problem of carbon dioxide build up, and had allowed its tankers to be used to collect samples. Exxon knew, in other words, this is one of the last public or semi public discussions of CO2 that Exxon would do without casting doubt and denial, which began in ‘88. 

What I think we can learn from this is that well Exxon kept on knowing but the weather changed within the C suite, and they basically decided denial was their friend for their business model.

What happened next

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 28, 2001 – (Vice) President George Bush nixes Kyoto

March 28, 2010 – protestors block Newcastle coal terminal #auspol

March 28, 2017 – Heartland Institute spamming science teachers

March 28, 2017 – Trump “brings back coal”

Categories
Science United States of America

March 25, 1957 – Plass et al. at La Jolla

Sixty nine years ago today, March 25, 1957, Gilbert Plass was at a Scripps conference in La Jolla, California.

Proceedings of a Conference held at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, 25-26 March 1957: 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been doing science for, well, the word science comes from the 1820s before that, they were “natural philosophers.” Concern/awareness that carbon dioxide build up in the atmosphere might eventually warm up the Earth, I suppose can be dated to Svante Arrhenius in 1895-96. His work was contested and then largely, but not totally ignored. Guy Callender had given a presentation in 1938 to the British Royal Meteorological Society.  

The specific context was that in 1953 Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass, building on Arrhenius and Callendar, had started the ball rolling on “carbon dioxide build-up as a problem.” In the next couple of years other people had said similar. And then by this time, the International Geophysical Year was about to kick off.

And we know now, thanks to the work of Rebecca John that Charles David Keeling had been doing Carbon Dioxide measurement for various oil companies. 

Revelle and Seuss had been working on papers.

What I think we can learn from this is that by 1957 a whole bunch of American (mostly – though here I am doing a real injustice to the Swedes) scientists, including Joseph Kaplan etc, were looking at carbon dioxide and going, “you know, this might well be a serious problem.”  

What happened next Plass published another article in Scientific American in 1959 which was advertised in the Observer. Plass was there in January 1961 in New York, and again, 63 in New York at the Conservation Foundation’s meeting, and that was his last that I can find around any engagement with the CO2 issue. He had said everything he planned to say. He’d worked on it now for over 10 years, and he understandably moved on to other things. It was a basic physics problem that he had solved.

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 25, 1982 – congressional hearings and CBS Evening News report

March 25, 1988- World Meteorological Organisation sends IPCC invites.

March 25, 1995 – “Women and the Environment” conference in Melbourne 

March 25, 2013 – Australian Department of Climate Change axed

Categories
Media United States of America

March 22, 1982 – Chicago Trib front page story about … climate change

Forty four ago, on this day, March 22nd, 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 journalists had been writing these sorts of stories for a long time; since the 60s, really, (since the 50s, but it was speculation). But from the late 60s, speculation was beginning to harden up.

The specific context was that scientifically, there had been the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in January of 1982 in Washington, DC. Hanson and Flohn, nd other people had made the statements they did, so maybe that helped nudge the Chicago Trib writer, Richard Kotulak (who is still alive).

What I think we can learn from this is that there were switched-on journalists in 1982 which is 44 years ago, and switched-on readers. We knew plenty.

What happened next The carbon dioxide problem had another moment in late 1983, but it didn’t really become front page news again until 1988 thanks to hard “problem entrepreneur” work by dedicated scientists.

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 22, 1960 – US Television warning of carbon dioxide build up, courtesy Athelstan Spilhaus…

March 22, 2007 – Unions talk good game on climate

March 22, 2007 – Fairfax tells its staff to Be Green, for an hour. 

March 22, 2012 – flash mobs and repertoire exhaustion

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…