Fifteen years ago, on this day, December 22nd, 2010,
“What we see happening with new record temperatures, both warm and cold, is in good agreement with what we predicted in the 1980s when I testified to Congress about the expected effect of global warming. I used coloured dice then to emphasize that global warming would cause the climate dice to be ‘loaded’—for risk of more extreme weather.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that Hansen has been banging on about carbon dioxide build-up for 50 years. His first foray into the world beyond science on this was in 1981. McKibben wrote a series of essays for the New Yorker that was then published as a book “The End of Nature”
The specific context was – that the UNFCCC conference in Copenhagen had been a farce, and it was clear things were gonna get out of hand.
What I think we can learn from this – being smart and right isn’t enough.
What happened next – Hansen and McKibben have gone on being smart and right.
The emissions have kept climbing. Who knows, maybe solar will reduce our energy emissions markedly. Who knows…
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.
Thirty five years ago, on this day, December 21st, 1990, the United Nations General Assembly, via Resolution 45/212, creates the “International Negotiating Committee”, to negotiate a global climate treaty (what became the UNFCCC).
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that the United Nations General Assembly had been here before. In 1968 it had said yes to a conference, to be held in 1972. That had given the world (checks notes…) the United Nations Environment Program.
The specific context was that despite the best efforts of the US (and the UK), negotiations for a climate treaty to be signed at the June 1992 Earth Summit in Rio were gonna begin. The second world climate conference had just happened in Geneva and now the “International Negotiating Committee” was going to be a thing.
What I think we can learn from this – if enough pressure builds, new organisations/institutions are formed (That is not to say they endure, or are worth a bucket of warm spit, necessarily).
What happened next? The INC met five times from early 1991 to early 1992 – many sticking points (i.e. obstacles thrown up by the US and the oil producing states). George HW Bush repeatedly, and credibly, threatened to boycott the Earth Summit if the treaty text included targets and timetables for emissions reductions. And eventually, the French blinked and the targets and timetables were taken out.
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.
Fifty four years ago, on this day, December 20th, 1971,
But the newly revealed Dec. 20, 1971, research proposal by the White House Office of Science and Technology shows for the first time that Nixon’s science advisors embarked on an extensive analysis of the potential risks of climate change and an assessment of the data needs. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/26042024/nixon-administration-climate-research-plan/
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 326ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was the first global ecological awakening (aka “The Malthusian Moment”) had begun in late 1968/early 1969, with Earthrise and then the Santa Barbara Oil Spill. April 1970 had seen “Earth Day”…. That same year had seen the passage of NEPA and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The specific context was that Nixon’s people (e.g. Daniel Moynihan) had been talking about carbon dioxide build-up since 1969.
What I think we can learn from this – there were people doing the research and thinking all the way back then.
What happened next – extensive federal support for climate research only got going late in the 1970s, with the 1978 National Climate Programme Act.
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.
Fifty-six years ago today, the heavy-weight magazine The Economist editorialises on environment, and CO2 build-up
“You might even say that something encouragingly like a constructive panic is on.”
But one is left with the fear that the massed ranks now setting out to do battle against the pale horsemen of this new apocalypse may end up trampling one another to death. Now that it is legitimate to be against motherhood “environment looks like becoming a battle-cry that will be both unchallengeable and universally fashionable.”
Mr Moynihan… has been leaning rather heavily on such suggestions as that, by the year 2000, the level of the oceans could rise by ten feet as a result of the increased carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. This content has, indeed, already been increased by 10 per cent by the use of coal and oil fuels (each transatlantic airliner puts a hundred tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere); and the restoration of the balance by photosynthesis in plant life on land and in the sea may be increasingly jeopardised by human spoliation of the environment. But scientists have been unable to agree in predicting the long-term effects of a fouler atmosphere on the earth’s surface temperature, and hence on the sea level.
What is agreed is that we are destabilising the balance of nature in this and other ways, and that where remedies are available they will mostly require action on an international scale.
The mess we are making now could have catastrophic effects not upon a distant posterity – assuming that there is going to be any such thing – but within a few decades.
But even the foggiest words are a less alarming additive to the atmosphere than an excess of carbon dioxide. For one forceful exposition of what it is all about, those who did not hear Dr Fraser Darling’s lectures might well read them in the Listener or in book form; for another, they may be referred to a remarkable book which was originally published in Sweden three years ago and which is credited with having inspired the subsequent Swedish drive to bring the whole problem to the forefront of international discussion. Some day we may all have cause for gratitude to these prophets of avoidable doom.
Anon, 1969. Of Muck and Men. The Economist, December 20, p.15
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 324ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that Guy Callendar, who had bravely done the work in the 1930s was sadly not around to see this – he had died five years earlier. But by then others had taken up the fight, and tv programmes (including a couple by the late great Roy Battersby) had introduced it to UK audiences.
The specific context was that by 1969, “everyone” was talkin’ pollution, and editors must have known that the Wilson government was about to set up a (standing) Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.
What I think we can learn from this – the British elites (political, economic) knew what might be coming by 1969.
What happened next – the carbon dioxide fear got kicked by Frank Ireland, the Alkali Inspector, the following August.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Forty years ago, on this day, December 19th, 1985,
“On December 19, 1985, Congress set aside nearly $400 million for the government’s share of funds for “constructing and operating facilities to demonstrate the feasibility of their future clean coal commercial application” (Public Law No. 99-190).”
(DoE 1992) Department of Energy. 1992. Clean Coal Technology: A New Era. Washington DC: Department of Energy. http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015041771992;view=1up;seq=5
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 346ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that the cleanliness/dirtyness of coal had been a “local” problem for, well, since it started to be burned. The Donora fog was one clear (see what I did there?) example. But other pressures were building, including acid rain (the Canadians were pissed off) and our friend anthropogenic global warming. In the late 1970s interest in carbon capture and storage had begun…. By the early 1980s the International Energy Agency was doing “clean coal” seminars and workshops.
The specific context was people didn’t let Reagan’s alleged enthusiasm for small states and free-markets get in the way of taxpayer funding of research and development moolah…
What I think we can learn from this – the clean coal rhetoric has been around for yonks.
What happened next – all the technology was delivered under-budget and ahead of schedule, worked perfectly and coal is now super-dooper clean.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Forty three years ago, on this day, December 19th, 1982,
Horizon BBC Two Sun 19th Dec 1982, 15:20 on BBC Two England
The State of the Planet
This year 100 world authorities on the environment met in London; their task, to assess progress in the ten years since the first major UN Environment Conference in Stockholm.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 341ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that yes, the big Stockholm “save the earth” conference was ten years ago. There were some signs of progress on some issues (lead in petrol, etc) but clearly other problems were growing.
The specific context was – the international bureaucracy loves an anniversary – another chance for more reports, more meetings, more pledges.
What I think we can learn from this – we knew plenty a very long time ago. The best time to slam your foot on the brakes is before the bus goes off the cliff.
What happened next – the facts kept getting told. And ignored. By the late 1980s, for a variety of reasons, they became unignorable. BBC Horizon kept making programs about this.
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.
Seventy-two years ago, on this day, December 18th, 1953, Irving Langmuir gave a seminar at General Electric,
In 1953, at the time he was making highly dubious claims for the efficacy of weather modification and even climate modification, Langmuir presented a seminar at GE on “Pathological science” or “the science of things that arenʼt so.”(27) Utilizing his own criteria for pathology, Langmuirʼs claims for cloud seeding qualified on several counts: they rested on observations close to the threshold of detectability, on apparently meaningful patterns generated in field trials; on the inability of critics to reproduce the experiments; on the intervention of the courts, legislature, and the press; and on overreliance on the credentials of a Nobel laureate rather than proof.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 312ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that in the aftermath of World War 2, anything seemed possible, if you threw enough money and brains at it.
The specific context was – hydrogen bombs had been tested, and weather modification was “in the air” – but maybe it couldn’t be done…
What I think we can learn from this – even those taking the grants for the experiments were not sure it could be done…
What happened next – Langmuir died in 1957. The Weather Modification bandwagon rolled on for decades.
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
Fleming, J. 2006. The pathological history of weather and climate modification: Three cycles of promise and hype . Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences (2006) 37 (1): 3–25.
Twenty five years ago, on this day, December 17th, 2000,
COMPANIES that produce greenhouse gas would have to buy permits to do so under plans outlined in a new report by the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO).
The report rejects proposals backed by business for permits to be handed out, arguing the idea would be inefficient and do little to protect jobs that are at risk from greenhouse gas reduction proposals.
Anon. 2000. Gas permit plan. Sunday Telegraph, December 17
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that fossil fuel interests had fought a very successful pair of campaigns against a carbon tax (1990-1 and 1994-5). A pissweak voluntary scheme, the “Greenhouse Challenge” had come into play in 1995, and the Howard government was content for this to keep going.
The specific context was that an emissions trading scheme proposal had been defeated, thanks to South Australian Liberal Senator Nick Minchin, in August 2000. But the pretence of action had to be maintained, for various reasons.
What I think we can learn from this – it is all kayfabe, all make-believe.
What happened next. Another proposal for an emissions trading scheme, supported by the entire Cabinet bar one person, came forward in mid-2003. That one person was Prime Minister John Howard, who vetoed it.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Sixty eight years ago, on this day, December 16th, 1957, there was a Meteorological Office discussion of Atmospheric Chemistry at the Royal Society of Arts.
And
“If carbon dioxide continued to be generated by human activities at the present rate, and if it all remained in the air, there would be a change in the world’s climate which within a few centuries might be disastrous.”
(see 1958 Meteorological Magazine)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 315ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that the Met Office has been around for yonks! The Royal Society of the Arts is somewhat older.
The specific context was that the International Geophysical Year was underway, with a lot of data analysis to come…
Even before the data was collected, however, there was knowledge that there might be trouble ahead.
NB John Sawyer was present (more on this later).
What I think we can learn from this – The IGY generated a lot of things to talk about!
What happened next
The Met Office didn’t start getting seriously interested in carbon dioxide until 1976…
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.
Seventeen years ago today, December 15 2008, the late John Vidal writes up the facts in an article titled “Those Kingsnorth police injuries in full: six insect bites and a toothache”
When climate camp protesters descended on the site of the Kingsnorth power station for a week-long summer demonstration, the scale of the police operation to cope with them was enormous.
Police were accused of using aggressive tactics, confiscating everything from toilet rolls and board games to generators and hammers. But ministers justified what they called the “proportionate” £5.9m cost of the operation, pointing out that 70 officers had been injured in the course of their duties.
But data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act puts a rather different slant on the nature of those injuries, disclosing that not one was sustained in clashes with demonstrators.
Papers acquired by the Liberal Democrats via Freedom of Information requests show that the 1,500 officers policing the Kingsnorth climate camp near the Medway estuary in Kent, suffered only 12 reportable injuries during the protest during August.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 386ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that those agitating for crazy ideas, like (checks notes) an end to slavery, votes, votes for women etc etc are always ignored, and once they can’t be ignored are repressed and smeared. That’s just the way it is.
The specific context was that Climate Camp had been allowed to run for two years already (the police were well aware of the plans to take the Drax site, since those discussions were held in the flat of one of the Spycops). Probably by now they were getting bored, and the SDS was being closed down. So, time to up the harassment (confiscating board games, blasting music at 3am etc etc) and also try to smear the activists with the help of a credulous/compliant media.
What I think we can learn from this – you shouldn’t straight up believe everything you read in a newspaper, even (especially if?!) it comes from an “official source.”
In the words of the journalist Nicholas Tomalin – “they lie, they lie, they lie.”
What happened next
Same same same. Some things just don’t change.
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.
