Category: United States of America

Categories
Denial United States of America

March 28, 2017 – Heartland Institute spamming science teachers

Six years ago, on this day, March 28, 2017, PBSs report on the denialist Heartland Institute spamming science teachers with ludicrous “NIPPC” nonsense.

Climate Change Skeptic Group Seeks to Influence 200,000 Teachers

“Twenty-five thousand science teachers opened their mailboxes this month and found a package from the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. It contained the organization’s book “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming,” as well as a DVD rejecting the human role in climate change and arguing instead that rising temperatures have been caused primarily by natural phenomena. The material will be sent to an additional 25,000 teachers every two weeks until every public-school science teacher in the nation has a copy, Heartland president and CEO Joseph Bast said in an interview last week. If so, the campaign would reach more than 200,000 K-12 science teachers.”

Climate Change Skeptic Group Seeks to Influence 200,000 Teachers

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 407.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that the culture war never ends. The Heartland Institute had suffered reverses because of its attempt to smear environmentalists with the Unabomber; it was all considered a bit much (see May 4th, 2012 – The Heartland Institute tries the Unabomber smear. It, er, blows up in their face). And so low profile stuff, like sending science teachers loads of crap was more likely to keep them afloat and feeling important.

What I think we can learn from this

As per the blog post about the school student, and the textbooks, which we come to in April, controlling what children are able to learn about climate change the way it is framed is a major goal of denialists organisations. And unfortunately, they have been very successful in this. Here we are 35 years into public knowledge of a climate emergency and most people are not taught or are mis-taught this stuff as they grow up. And then that sets the anchoring for them (see the anchoring heuristic). 

What happened next

Heartland has kept going on this stuff I think and most textbooks are crap on this as per December 22 2022 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

Categories
United States of America

March 24, 2010 – Scientists explain another bad thing on the horizon, this time on soil.

Thirteen years ago, on this day, March 24, 2010, another depressing article appeared in Nature. Why do they never print positive stories, eh?

Even soil feels the heat 

Twenty years of field studies reveal that as the Earth has gotten warmer, plants and microbes in the soil have given off more carbon dioxide. So-called soil respiration has increased about one-tenth of 1 percent per year since 1989, according to an analysis of past studies in today’s issue of Nature.

The scientists also calculated the total amount of carbon dioxide flowing from soils, which is about 10 -15 percent higher than previous measurements. That number — about 98 petagrams of carbon a year (or 98 billion metric tons) — will help scientists build a better overall model of how carbon in its many forms cycles throughout the Earth. Understanding soil respiration is central to understanding how the global carbon cycle affects climate.

https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=786

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that this part of the ongoing work, scientific work in biological systems, is pointing out that the impacts of climate change are on the whole going to come faster and harder than we previously thought. Not always but usually.

Biologists had been looking at climate change and going “hmm” since the mid 1950s (see the great G. Evelyn Hutchinson).

What I think we can learn from this

We need to remember that there is the risk as James Hansen puts it of being too reticent, as per his May 2007 thoughts (link here).

What happened next

We kept running the big experiment. And the results are coming in.

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

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

Sixty three  years ago, on this day, March 22, 1960, viewers of a major US news channel were informed about carbon dioxide build-up and its implications.

“The Mysterious Deep” aired on March 22 and April 3, 1960, and is an important documentary for reasons beyond its music: First, it contains one of the earliest American television interviews with legendary explorer Jacques-Yves Cousteau, whose UNDERSEA WORLD OF JACQUES COUSTEAU would later revolutionize TV’s approach to oceanography; and second, for its remarkably prescient view of climate change. Within its first five minutes, scientist Athelstan Spilhaus warns of the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere that could eventually melt the polar ice caps.  https://buysoundtrax.myshopify.com/products/franz-waxman-the-documentaries-the-mysterious-deep-lenin-and-trotsk

“This documentary series hosted by Walter Cronkite,… examines outstanding events and personalities of the twentieth century. In this program, part one of two, Cronkite examines the mysteries of the ocean. Topics discussed include the following: penetrating the ocean surface; the aqualung, a self-contained breathing apparatus developed by oceanographer Jacques-Yves Cousteau; the possibility that the ice caps will melt; the violence of the sea and scientists’ attempts to control the weather to stop violent hurricanes before they originate; how sea water is used to quench the thirsts of millions of people through irrigation systems that purify the water; the importance of seaweed harvesting in Japan; and how microphones are used to determine if sea creatures have a way of communicating. Includes a preview of part two.”

Details

  • NETWORK: CBS
  • DATE: March 27, 1960 Sunday 6:30 PM
  • RUNNING TIME: 0:26:15
  • COLOR/B&W: B&W

https://www.paleycenter.org/collection/item/?q=cbs&p=19&item=T79:0499

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 the International Geophysical Year ended in 1958. And the questions of the weather in the natural world continued to be fascinating to everyone. And this was at the high tide of new technologies which could see further underwater so, Cousteau and so forth. 

What’s interesting about Spilhaus was that he worked for Roger Revelle in the 1930s. As I recall, I think he did a PhD. And he was also a cartoonist, and by 1958, he had started his famous world of tomorrow cartoons and in 1958. He had done one on the greenhouse effect in a 1958 cartoon here. 

This is one of the first examples of coverage of greenhouse gas emissions on the television  

What I think we can learn from this

We really have had loads of time to get used to the idea, haven’t we?

What happened next

Nothing effective on mitigation. Lots of emissions. Then consequences.

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

March 18, 1958 – Military man spots carbon dioxide problem

Sixty five years ago, on this day, March 18, 1958, a US military man explains that carbon dioxide build-up is a possible, accidental, form of weather modification. 

In a paper presented to Congress in 1958, retired navy captain Howard T. Orville enumerated the ways in which humans might intentionally or unintentionally alter the weather or climate. Coincidentally, one of his first points involved the unintentional warming of the earth through C02.

(Howe, 2014:26)

Orville quoted; Weather Modification Research hearings of House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 85th Congress, March 18-19 1958

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hppYLYOcv0oC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=%22Weather+Modification+Research%22+hearings+of+%22House+Committee+on+Interstate+and+Foreign+Commerce%22,+85th+Congress&source=bl&ots=VqvXQyKqmX&sig=ACfU3U1XS6habXqG_Mb_IsjsekztVTyLpg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK6tfEsMHrAhUPWsAKHZLpBU8Q6AEwAHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Weather%20Modification%20Research%22%20hearings%20of%20%22House%20Committee%20on%20Interstate%20and%20Foreign%20Commerce%22%2C%2085th%20Congressorville&f=false

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 315.7ppm (this was the first month we have C02 measurements from Mauna Loa!). As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that at this point, the idea of intentional weather modification, think using hurricanes to smash your opponents, crops and fleets, was still a thing (This was the late 1950s when we were properly drunk on hubris). And so Captain Orville’s testimony came, it was not the first time he had spoken on this. And came three months after the New York Times had done a detailed report about this, that included concern about carbon dioxide buildup, and Orville himself talked about co2 buildup as inadvertent weather modification (link Jan 1 1958 article).

What I think we can learn from this

Sometimes or in fact, all the time, you don’t hit what you aim for, that the knowledge that is later useful comes almost by accident. And again, in the 1950s American politicians were indeed being warned about carbon dioxide, and had been for several years by then.

What happened next

The weather modification, beyond some very local effects in Vietnam (Operation Popeye), was a washout, despite what the chemtrailers would have you believe.

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
Uncategorized United States of America

March 15, 1956 – scientist explains climate change to US senators

Sixty seven years ago, on this day, March 15, 1956, Roger Revelle laid out the facts while trying to assure senators that taxpayers’ money was being well spent.  It got reported the following day by the Los Angeles Times.

Anon, 1956. Gas fumes suspected as factor in climate. Los Angeles Times, March 16, p. 25.

AND 

 Norman, L. 1956. Fumes seen warming arctic seas, Washington Post and Times Herald , March 19, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that big science was getting big money. And congressmen wanted to show that they were keeping informed. Revelle’s was in preparation for the International Geophysical Year. And he enjoyed, I think, testifying about this sort of stuff. At this point, it wasn’t clear that carbon dioxide levels were definitely going up. There had been a publication in 1955 querying the accuracy of the various measurements.

What I think we can learn from this

Congressmen have been aware of the issue as has anyone reading a newspaper since 1956. Actually, you can go earlier, but I would say the pivotal years are from 56 to 59. Before that, it’s just not that clear. 

What happened next

Revelle would solve that uncertainty about atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by hiring Charles David Keeling.  And by 1959, it was clear that yes, co2 levels were definitely 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..

Categories
Academia Science Scientists United States of America

March 12, 1963 – first ever carbon dioxide build-up conference

Sixty years ago, on this day, March 12, 1963, in New York

 “Dr. Keeling was concerned enough about rising carbon dioxide levels to participate in a panel by the Conservation Foundation on March 12, 1963 “Implications of Rising Carbon Dioxide Content of the Atmosphere”, the report issued being among the first to speculate that anthropogenic global warming could be dangerous to the Earth’s biological and environmental systems. It includes on page 6: “many life forms would be annihilated” [in the tropics] if emissions continued unchecked in the upcoming centuries. They also projected that carbon dioxide emissions could raise the average surface temperature of the earth by as much as 4°C during the next century (1963-2063)”

Source

Probably the first gathering of scientists and policymakers devoted specifically and explicitly to carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere.

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

The Conservation Foundation had been set up in New York in 1948

The International Geophysical Year was now 5 years in the past, a lot of data had been collected. In January of 1961, there had been a five day scientific conference organised by the American Meteorological Society and the New York Academy of Sciences with plenty of people talking about carbon dioxide buildup, and alongside that there had been other scientific efforts. So the Conservation Foundation, which had been aware of CO2 buildup as a potential problem for a while, held a gathering, the first ever carbon dioxide build up conference

What I think we can learn from this

Well, these sorts of events are fascinating for the legacy they leave. And for several years –  really till the end of the 1960s – the publication about this meeting was cited whenever in writing about carbon dioxide buildup for years, and it only really fell away entirely after the 1971 study on the man’s impact on climate. 

It also seems to have been the “last gasp” in climate science for Gilbert Plass whose statements and work from 1953 had been so important for the growth of acceptance of the carbon dioxide theory.

And in all probability, it was where Lewis Herbert aka Murray Bookchin got his facts for the section in his book written in 1964 and published in early 1965, called Crisis in our Cities, which will be discussed soon.

And the reason I say this is that the event was in New York, Bookchin was in New York and it’s impossible to imagine that he wasn’t aware of the Conservation Foundation’s activities. Bookchin’s politics were not of the technocrats. But just because he didn’t agree with the funders does not mean he’d have ignored what was happening under their auspices.

What happened next

Plass dropped out. 

Roger Revelle and Charles Keeling kept doing what they were doing. 

And the closing statement – well, it came to pass…

Categories
United States of America

March 11, 1969 – NASA explains need to monitor C02 build-up to politicians

Fifty four years ago, on this day, March 11, 1969, some NASA scientists mention the (non-controversial) build-up of C02

 John E. Naugle, Donald Hearth at hearing on NASA budget

“If we are to understand our own atmosphere and to evaluate the long-term consequences of man-made changes (such as the increase in carbon dioxide content), we need to conduct comparative studies of the atmospheres of the other planets.”

“As we look at our planet, as we look at the population that is increasing, we know that man is not only polluting, but possibly beginning to change the very fundamental nature of our atmosphere on the earth.”—John E. Naugle 

source = climatebrad

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

NASA’s stock was very high, they were about to put a man on the Moon using 20 billion pounds of your money and good old American knowhow as provided by Good old Americans like Dr. Wehrner von Braun. And they were also looking at Venus and Mars and so forth. 

So it’s really no surprise to the NASA folks would be aware of carbon dioxide buildup because well it’s fairly basic science

What I think we can learn from this

This is just one more example of how, by the late 1960s, scientists were informing politicians about the basic facts of what was being done to the planet. It was not a theory, it was just a fact.

What happened next

 NASA put men on the moon. Apollo 13 showed for anyone who was paying attention the dangers of carbon dioxide buildup. Man didn’t get beyond low Earth orbit. The Space Shuttle was done on the cheap, and it showed twice. Now it looks like 50 years later, we are going to put Whitey on the moon. In the words of Gil Scott Heron. 

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
Media United States of America

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

 Twenty two years ago, on this day, March 7, 2001, the US news network CNN showed what is “normal” and what is “bad” in its cosmology, when reporting on old white men in suits versus protests…

7 March 2001 CNN reports on climate protests “marring” (pointless) climate talks – Protests mar climate talks 

https://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/italy/03/03/environment.summit/index.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 372.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there were  climate negotiations in Italy, at which the Americans were – surprise surprise – basically saying “fuck you.” This was shortly after George Bush was selected as President. 

The Hague negotiations in November 2000 had ended in such a disaster that the meeting wasn’t finally closed. And so with your big Cheney as his vice president, it looks pretty perilous for international climate negotiations.

What I think we can learn from this

What’s important here is the framing that protest activity by civil society would besmirch the nice, cool, rational debates of our lords and masters. Now, if you put it bluntly, the journalist who wrote it, or the sub-editor who wrote it, would either say, “Well, look, it’s just a headline. And we don’t have much space.” They might agree with the point about the politics at a superficial level. But if pushed, they would say “No, why should the mob be able to influence what the smart technocrats are doing?” 

And that hatred of ordinary people, and their involvement is persistent. And it’s the case that if you don’t abide by that, then you don’t get your role as a journalist or as an academic or whatever. 

If you’re interested in this stuff, then obviously, reading Chomsky is a good idea, but also the life and times of Randolph Bourne who died just after World War One. Obviously Gramsci on the power of hegemony. If and how the popular press works, and any number of publications by the Glasgow Media Group etc

What happened next

Bush pulled out of Kyoto, an entirely sane and rational decision “marred” by protest.

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
Science Scientists United States of America

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

Thirty five  years ago, on this day, March 7 (or thereabouts) 1988 at a conference on Gaia running from 7 to 11 March…

Richard Gammon of the US government’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory at Seattle in Washington state, seems to have been the first off the starting blocks. After seeing the complete data for 1987 and the first results for 1988, he told a conference in March 1988: “Since the mid-1970s we have been in a period of very, very rapid warming. We are ratcheting ourselves to a new warmer climate.”

(Pearce, 1989:3)

[“The Gaia Controversy: AGU’S Chapman Conference” in San Diego was from March 7 to 11.]

Rarely has a hypothesis immediately sparked such a passionate response. There is something in it for everybody, from hard core scientists to philosophers, ultraconservationists, students of world religions, mystics, politicians, and space enthusiasts; they were all there in San Diego, March 7–11, 1988, for the AGU Chapman Conference on Gaia Hypotheses. For 4 days an impressive list of specialists presented and debated the pros and cons of Gaia Hypotheses from diverse perspectives: modern and ancient biology, ecology, biochemistry, the physicochemical systems of the Earth, oceans, and atmosphere, and the evolution of the solar system.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 352.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that “earth systems” scientists were very interested in the Lovelock and Margulis Gaia theory, enough to have a conference about it. And from the October 1985 Villach meeting onwards, the scientists and politicians were all getting more interested in just how soon the signal would emerge from the noise on climate change…

What I think we can learn from this

James Hansen was not an outlier in his June 1988 testimony.  Sure, there wasn’t necessarily a majority, but what Hansen said was not all that unusual or surprising (see Schneider’s Greenhouse Century for accounts of how journalists kept looking for quotes from him to try to set up a “Hansen/Schneider split” story.)

What happened next

Within months climate change would become unavoidable for politicians. No more long grass…

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

Kaufman E., 1988. The Gaia Controversy: AGU’S Chapman Conference  Eos, Transactions American Geophysical UnionVolume 69, Issue 31 p. 763-764 https://doi.org/10.1029/88EO01043

Pearce, F. (1988) New Scientist

Pearce, F. (1989) Turning up the heat

Categories
Agnotology anti-reflexivity Denial United States of America

March 4, 2003 – “Luntz memo” exposes Bush climate strategy 

Twenty years ago, on this day, March 4, 2003, President Bush’s greenwash strategy was revealed in all its steaming glory 

The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has “lost the environmental communications battle” and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

“The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.”

Burkeman, O. 2003. Memo Exposes Bush’s New Greenwash Strategy.  The Guardian, March 4

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that George Bush was clearly not going to do anything about climate change. It’s not clear that Al Gore, who actually won the  2000 presidential election, would have either, but there you are. So it became a question of how to position the issue. So-called “perception management.” And the Luntz memo basically says, 

What I think we can learn from this

The battle for the control of the public mind is a never-ending battle. (Or rather, the propagandisation and the attempts to combat it, so that we can have a public sphere not dominated by rich vested interests, is never-ending). And as reality, physical reality, impinges more and more, you’re gonna find more and more people spewing propaganda and more and more people and this is the crux, wanting to believe it. So, this is not brainwashing against resistance. This is going with the grain.

What happened next

Luntz sort of kind of recanted ,in 2019

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/21/frank-luntz-wrong-climate-change-1470653

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..