Category: United States of America

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

Categories
United States of America

January 29, 1968 – LBJ talking about supersonic flight. 

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, January 29th, 1968,

Far from deploring the possible damage to people and property, the  President of the United States, on January 29, 1968, proposed the spending of $351 million for the development of a supersonic liner in fiscal 1969; this represented $223 million in new appropriation. l8 318 feet long, is designed to carry 300 passengers at 1800 miles per hour. It was estimated by Senator Clifford P. Case of New Jersey that the U. S. 19 supersonic transport fleet may eventually number from 200 to 1200 planes.

Concerned physicists have supplied us with information about the generation of a boom that is unavoidable for any object which travels in the air at a speed exceeding that of sound. The sonic boom produced by a supersonic transport plane accompanies the plane throughout its supersonic flight path; thus, a single flight across the U. S. would affect 10 to 40 million people. 

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19690009717/downloads/19690009717.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that in June 1963 JFK said yes to SST. 

June 5, 1963  – JFK says yes to SST – All Our Yesterdays

The specific context was Lyndon Johnson was on his way out. It was an election year, and there had been a growing “Dump Johnson” movement in the Democrats. There was also the small matter of the war in Vietnam, which wasn’t going so well…

What I think we can learn from this is that there was huge opposition to supersonic travel (sonic booms etc etc) and concerns about ozone depletion and climatic impacts were a part of all that.

What happened next Johnson had to declare he wouldn’t contest the 1968 election. In 1970 Congress basically killed supersonic transport, de facto if not de jure. This led, amusingly, to the creation of the Heritage Foundation…

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 29, 2001 – President Bush announces “energy taskforce” #TaskforceAnnouncementGrift

January 29, 2004 – John Daly, Australian skeptic, dies

January 29, 2006 – Attempts to gag James Hansen revealed

Categories
Science Scientists United Kingdom United States of America

January 28, 1990 –  Stephen Schneider and the dirty crystal ball.

Thirty six years ago, on this day, January 28th, 1990.

Another reviewer of the Gribbin book, William Goulding (The Sunday Times, 28 January, 1990), quotes the late climate scientist and climate science communicator Stephen Schneider as saying: “scientific predictions are like ‘trying to gaze into a dirty crystal ball. By taking time to clean the glass you can get a better picture; but at some point it is necessary to decide that the picture is good enough to alert policy makers and the general public to the hazards ahead. That point has certainly been reached with studies of the greenhouse effect and the prospect of rising sea levels in particular.’” Unfortunately, that point seems to be forever receding into the future… 

https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2018/08/11/groundhog-day-in-the-hothouse

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been measuring the impact of human activities, whether it was on air pollution, water pollution, ozone depletion, you name it, and had been trying to figure out how to raise the alarm without being called alarmist, and pondering where, when and how to speak out. 

So you have the famous Shelly Rowland quote 

“What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?”

Stephen Schneider was among them. In 1971 famously, he had co-authored a paper that got taken up as a when’s the new ice age happening, kind of thing to the dismay of some of his colleagues. I think it’s fair to say that Schneider leaned in. In 1976 he published the Genesis Strategy, He’d been on Johnny Carson (TV show). See also his efforts around the First World Climate Conference (Science as a contact sport)

The specific context was that the IPCC’s first assessment report was due out. (The IPCC had had its first meeting in November 1988). Meanwhile negotiations were clearly at some point going to begin for an international climate treaty. So here is Schneider, who was a very smart man, very thoughtful, trying to figure out when you pull the big lever. 

You can also see him tackling the same issues about 10 years prior, in a 1979 Panorama video. I would love to know when this video was; I haven’t been able to track it down.

Stephen Schneider in 1979

What I think we can learn from this is that scientists get flattened by industry and their paid attack dogs (and also by useful idiots).

What happened next

Schneider kept on trucking – his death was a huge huge loss

See also this from July 14 1988 Los Angeles Times –

Ozone Warning : He Sounded Alarm, Paid Heavy Price – Los Angeles Times

The interest was gratifying but more than a little ironic. “They won’t admit it but this means some kind of ban has been lifted,” Rowland said.

For as Rowland and others recount it, ever since 1974, when he and UCI postdoctoral fellow Mario Molina first theorized that the Earth’s protective ozone layer was being damaged by synthetic chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), Rowland has paid a price for his ideas.

In part, that’s because Rowland didn’t just make his discovery, write up the results and quietly return to his lab.

Instead, shocked by the implications of his research, he took an unusual public stance–doggedly telling reporters, Congress, half a dozen state legislatures, and just about anyone who seemed interested that ozone loss could lead to skin cancer and catastrophic climatic change. And, again and again for more than a decade, he urged that CFCs be banned.

In doing so, Rowland took on a $28-billion-a-year industry whose products, ranging from home insulating materials to solvents for electronic equipment, have become an essential part of modern life.

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 28, 1969 – Santa Barbara Oil spill

January 28, 1993 – Parliament protest – “Wake Up, the World is Dying” – Guest Post by Hugh Warwick

January 28, 2013 – Doomed “Green Deal” home insulation scheme launched in the UK

Categories
United States of America

January 27, 1888 – National Geographic Society incorporated

On this day, January 27, in 1888

“The National Geographic Society began as a club for an elite group of academics and wealthy patrons interested in travel and exploration.[8] On January 13, 1888, 33 explorers and scientists gathered at the Cosmos Club, a private club then located on Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C., to organize “a society for the increase and diffusion of geographical knowledge.” After preparing a constitution and a plan of organization, the National Geographic Society was incorporated two weeks later on January 27. Gardiner Greene Hubbard (co-founder of AT&T) became its first president and his son-in-law, Alexander Graham Bell (also co-founder of AT&T), succeeded him in 1897.[9]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 294ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that through the 19th century, with advances in transport, communications, the ability to measure and detect the “Golden Age”, if you want to call it that, of colonialism and also industrial depredations. Outfits like the National Geographic Society sprang up to record what was out there so it could either be exploited or protected. The two are not mutually exclusive.  

What I think we can learn from this is that institutions have histories. They are formed by real human beings in response to challenges/conditions which may no longer pertain.

What happened next

It kept going and did some nice magazines.  Climate change has been “in the mix” in those magazines. Not enough, obviously, but eh, whaddyagonnado.?

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: 

January 27, 1967 – James Lovelock told to keep schtum about climate change by Shell science boss

January 27, 1989 – UN General Assembly starts talking #climate

January 27, 1986 – Engineers try to stop NASA launching the (doomed) Challenger Space Shuttle

Categories
Activism United States of America

January 26, 2006 – Major Climate March by vulnerable minorities in the USA  

Twenty years ago on this day, January 26th, 2006, a climate protest march took place in Washington DC.

Nation’s snowmen march against global warming https://www.theonion.com/nations-snowmen-march-against-global-warming-1819568251

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 for decades – centuries – civil society has ignored the most. vulnerable groups. It is only when those vulnerable groups can come together, form coalitions and make a “critical mass” that they will be paid any attention.

The specific context was that by 2006 it was clear that climate change would not be dealt with unless the state and corporations were forced into it. This was a noble but doomed effort by a minority, very endangered group to make that happen. Perhaps they should have tried seizing the means of production.

What I think we can learn from this is that you have to take a stand, even if you’re doomed.

What happened next

Well, the movement just kind of melted away

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: 

January 26, 1970 – British PM offers US a “new special relationship” on pollution. (Conservative then tries to outflank him.)

January 26, 1972 – “Enhance Oil Recovery” with carbon dioxide kicks off.
Categories
United Kingdom United States of America

January 22, 1970- 747

Forty six years ago, on this day, January 22nd,1970

The Boeing 747, the world’s first “jumbo jet”, enters commercial service for launch customer Pan American Airways with its maiden voyage from John F. Kennedy International Airport to London Heathrow Airport.

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 by this time, humans have been flying since 1903 and in the post war era, commercial jet liners had become to be “a thing” thanks, in part, to Boeing using money they were given by the Department of Defence to create a cargo plane to prototype – aka the 707. There were also just a lot of surplus aeroplanes and pilots with the necessary skills. So commercial aviation in the 1950s is a good example of the Great Acceleration.

The specific context was that in the 1960s it was assumed that supersonic passenger travel would become a thing. Both JFK and Lyndon Johnson signed off on proposed jetliner funding for them, etc. But it turned out physics and economics had other opinions. There were also environmental issues around, for example, sonic boom and ozone depletion. 

In the midst of this, the 747 was designed as a kind of stop gap. It would be big, not slow, but not fast, and would be rendered obsolete by the coming of not just, you know, Concorde, but the Boeing etc, equivalents.

What I think we can learn from this is that this is sometimes the standby technology that is supposed to be there for a little while. Sticks around because it is good enough. (Kind of a flying QWERTY keyboard – kind of.)

What happened next 

And as we now know, for various reasons, that never happened. And the 747 stayed with us. It continued to be built with minor modifications, like those upturned wings. I think it’s still in use as cargo, but I’m not sure that anyone is still flying them for passengers because they’re heavy and out of date. Nope – there are still, as of Jan 2025, four airlines still using them! Which Airlines Still Fly The Boeing 747 On Its 55th Flight Anniversary?

I travelled on it a lot (never upstairs!) and it did the job. And in some ways, it was elegant. There’s all the airport films in the 70s. There’s this explosion, the bringing down of the Lockerbie plane, and of course, KAL-007

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: 

January 22, 1992 – “Greenhouse action will send Australia to the poorhouse”

January 22, 1995 – UK Prime Minister John Major told to implement green taxes on #climate

January 22, 2002 – Exxon and on and on