In January 2025 I stumbled on a single issue of a “CO2 Newsletter”, from 1981, at the National Archives. My first reaction, which I remember well, was of bafflement and amazement. How could such an extraordinary publication exist, and how could it have been so unjustly forgotten by History?
From 1979 an American geologist, William N. Barbat, had poured his heart, soul and considerable intelligence into trying to galavanise politicians, bureaucrats, energy companies, campaigning groups etc into taking carbon dioxide build-up seriously.
He clearly was across the then latest science, could join the dots and – above all – could do the very hard work of synthesising and communicating what he was learning. I am still, a year and a half later, in awe, because I am old enough to remember the pre-internet (indeed, pre-personal computer) world, and just how much hard work was involved.
A friend who works on climate history (whom I’ve never met and probably never well) was equally enthused. We plotted to get more issues via official sources. Fortunately, I was, via a kind journalist, able to contact Barbat’s daughter. Within a few weeks I had a complete set of the 18 newsletters in my possession, and, crucially, permission to digitise and put online.
I had by this time been doing “All Our Yesterdays” for almost four years, and was getting both discouraged and bored. The Newsletters gave me a reason – and a ‘structure’ (or at least a rhythm and a timetable!) to keep going.
I would, I thought, upload and publicise an issue of the Newsletter every three weeks or so through 2026. Then I realised it would be even better if I could get people to write commentaries to accompany these releases. I wanted the list of commentators to be gender balanced, and if at all possible, not entirely white. I am fantastically grateful to each and every person who has written a commentary [links here]. They are all excellent.
The Newsletters have now reached a wide audience – each issue gets well-received on Bluesky (I abandoned Twitter a while back, obviously), and given me renewed enthusiasm for All Our Yesterdays.
Now, I am asking people who have “enjoyed” (well, appreciated!) the Newsletters – what more can be done to get them the audience they deserve? How can their existence – and content – help more people?
I am keen to hear your ideas…
What I have got so far
Academically
Write at least two articles about Barbat and the Newsletters
Social media
Short videos to accompany each release
A longer (10m?) video about the context and scope of Barbat’s work).
Thirty five years ago, on this day, September 3rd, [nb] 1991,
Dick Smith launches IPA nonsense “Reconciling Economics and the Environment”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2026, 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 Dick Smith had made a quick fortune by establishing and then selling a range of cheap and cheerful electronics outlets, and Smith had also taken an interest in biodiversity. He’d created Australian Geographic, so he had environmental credentials and plausibility. Smith is also, or was at the time – I don’t know if he still is – extremely “dry” on his economics, and so was happy to pal around with the Institute for Public Affairs, a so-called think tank that spews climate denial. It didn’t do it explicitly back then, quite so much as it does now.
Thespecificcontext was that debates over a carbon tax were live, and the IPA was keen to attack such moves as unjustifiable interference in the “free” market.
What I think we can learn from this is that climate denialists know when to push for delay and when to come out with active denial, and they know how to make marriages of convenience with plausible cultural and economic figures.
What happened next Australian Geographic is still being published. I don’t know (or particularly care) what Smith’s views are on climate change, but ultimately we’re completely fucked.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
In Sydney, on September 7, 1991, famous Australian entrepreneur and environmentalist Dick Smith launched Reconciling Economics and the Environment, edited by Jeff Bennett and Walter Block, for the IPA.1
Professor Paul Edwards (author of “A Vast Machine” – full bio at end) writes about Vol.2 no. 6 of William Barbat’s CO2 Newsletter
Professor Paul Edwards
William Barbat devoted half or more of each CO2 Newsletter to his own, greatly abridged versions of recent scientific articles, reports, and journalism. This format used to be called a “digest.” Younger folks coming up in the age of instant, effortless AI summaries will be unaware just how much digests could matter in the now-vanished world of paper publications. In that world, finding, obtaining, and understanding scientific work was harder than today. Digests like Barbat’s played a key role, especially in interdisciplinary fields such as climate science. I wish I had found it while writing my book A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming (MIT Press, 2010).
The September-October issue of CO2 Newsletter (Vol. 2 No. 6) appeared in the fall of 1981, just as I was starting graduate school. President Reagan was hitting the stride of his first term, backed by a Republican Senate majority – the party’s first in either house of Congress since 1953. Reagan’s anti-environmental positions were hardening into policies and rollbacks. His nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Anne Gorsuch (mother of present-day Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch), had been confirmed in May. She cut the agency’s budget by 22 percent and severely reduced regulation of polluters and pollutants. Reagan famously stripped the White House roof of the demonstration solar panels recently installed there by his predecessor, Jimmy Carter. His first Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, loosened strip-mining rules and quintupled the amount of land leased to coal-mining companies, “at a loss of $100 million according to the General Accounting office” (Time, “The Legacy of James Watt,” 1983).
Meanwhile, however, worries about the “carbon dioxide problem” had taken firm root among environmental activists and within Congressionally mandated government scientific advisory bodies. These included the White House Council on Environmental Quality (established in 1969 as part of the law creating the EPA) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, created in 1976. The Department of Energy housed a CO2 Climate Effects Research and Assessment Program (discussed by Barbat in Vol. 2 No. 5). Journalists, led by the great New York Times science reporter Walter Sullivan, seemed to have finally zeroed in on the fundamental concern. As Barbat wrote in this issue,
“Newspapers and magazines are now publishing articles on the CO2 problem with greater frequency and with deeper understanding. Not long ago, editors seemed to print at least one article predicting the rapid return of an ice age climate for every article predicting CO2 greenhouse warming, and the CO2 articles often received less prominence. The public was confused about climate trends, the news media were confused, and the scientific community also gave the impression of being confused.”
Environmental activists, too, had begun to take the issue on board. Despite some quirks, Nathaniel Rich’s article and book Losing Earth covers the 1979-89 politics of climate reasonably well.
Even this meager amount of context greatly enriches a reading of this issue of the CO2 Newsletter. Barbat devotes most of it to two events whose groundbreaking quality is evident only in retrospect. First, he digests testimony from subcommittee hearings held in the House of Representatives on July 31, 1981. Titled “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: The Greenhouse Effect,” those hearings were co-led by a young Al Gore, then in his third term representing Tennessee. Barbat summarizes testimony by Joe Smagorinsky, head of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory: “despite the admitted existence of numerous uncertainties, the consensus on the nature and magnitude of the [CO2] problem has remained remarkably constant throughout this long worldwide process of study and deliberation.” Arguably the world’s most important organizer of climate science in the 1960s and 1970s, Smagorinsky was largely responsible for the Global Atmospheric Research Program (GARP) and the First GARP Global Experiment (discussed at length in A Vast Machine.)
My own mentor, colleague, and friend Stephen Schneider’s testimony also comes up for review: “perhaps the most dramatic, even if far off, potential event would be the breaking of part of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, possibly resulting in a five- or so meter sea level rise….” Today, 45 years later, the grounding line of the Thwaites “doomsday glacier” – part of that very West Antarctic ice sheet – is being undermined from below by warming seawater. Barbat also quotes Schneider saying “… if we wait ten or twenty years before proceeding with… actions, then we will have to adapt to a larger amount of CO2 and its consequences than if actions were taken now to either increase our options to deal with CO2 in the future, or to eliminate CO2 emissions….” Among the saddest facts of our time is that despite remarkable progress toward increased efficiency, electrification, and renewable energy, annual global CO2 emissions have risen every year since then, with only two exceptions: 2009, following the 2008 recession, and 2020, the first year of the COVID pandemic.
As Barbat notes, the House subcommittees that took in Smagorinsky’s and Schneider’s testimony expressed skeptical views. Barbat: “The overall results of government-sponsored programs had to be defended vigorously, and the new administration wants assurance that sociological and political implications of the CO2 greenhouse problem were not derived ideologically. However, the net effect on future CO2 research may be very beneficial.” That assessment proved prophetic. Unable to completely suppress the climate issue, the Reagan administration found it most convenient to chant the mantra “more research is needed,” thus helping to create the seemingly endless cycle of ever more potent climate reports and assessments followed by little policy action.
Schneider would go on to found the interdisciplinary journal Climatic Change, co-found the IPCC, and win a MacArthur award. Al Gore relied on him as a key science informant, and the two became friends. By the 1990s, Gore was the most prominent American politician to take a strong stance on climate policy. Had he become president in the 2000 election, the world might have moved more swiftly toward decarbonization. Long after his stint as Vice President (1993-2000), Gore was still presenting his slide show to anyone who would hear it. He wrote two climate books, starred in a documentary about his work, An Inconvenient Truth (2006), and played a key behind-the-scenes role in the 2015 landmark Paris Agreement.
The second major “event” discussed in Vol. 2 No. 6 is an article in Science, “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.” Its lead author: James Hansen, whose 1988 Congressional testimony would become one of the most iconic moments in climate politics. Barbat had already presented that article’s abstract in issue No. 5. By the time of No. 6, he would certainly have seen Walter Sullivan’s front-page article about it in the New York Times (August 22, 1981). At nearly 2400 words, Barbat’s digest version occupies most of two newsletter pages (out of eight); the full article in Science is just 8.5 pages, including numerous figures and charts.
By omitting its citations and nearly all of its math, Barbat brings out the article’s major findings for a more general audience. One is the equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C for doubled CO2 , a figure that has stood the test of time; the IPCC Sixth Assessment (Working Group I, 2021) narrowed the range of that value to 2.5-4°C. Second, and more significant for climate politics, Hansen and his co-authors projected warming of 3-4.5°C under a “fast growth” scenario, or 2.5°C under “slow growth” by 2100 – entirely in line with most present-day assessments. Finally, they predicted that “CO2 warming should rise above the noise level of natural climate variability” in the 1990s. And indeed, the CO2 “fingerprint” was detected in the early 1990s, underpinning the famous “balance of evidence” statement in the IPCC’s 1995 Second Assessment Report.
As a final, unrelated comment, I note that this period of time – not long after the Three Mile Island partial nuclear meltdown in 1979 – was the high-water mark of the anti-nuclear movement, especially in Germany, the UK, and the United States. In the “Feedback” section of this newsletter, a very annoyed Amory Lovins responds to Barbat’s article in the previous issue regarding his “Energy Strategy for Low Climatic Risks” (Report for the German Federal Environmental Agency, June 1981, co-authored with Hunter L. Lovins, Florentin Krause, and Wilfrid Bach). By then Lovins was already famous for his early book Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace (1977), which dismissed nuclear power as not only too risky but also too expensive. He and his eventual Rocky Mountain Institute focused instead on reducing energy consumption through efficiency, passive heating/cooling, and other techniques, while rejecting fossil fuels in favor of solar and wind energy.
Barbat, by contrast, was strongly pro-nuclear – a position that remains quite common among geologists (Barbat’s own discipline) and climate scientists of my acquaintance. Probably no issue related to energy and environment has ever inspired stronger commitments pro and con. In his account of Lovins’ report, Barbat could not refuse himself a dig: “Thus when Amory Lovins states, ‘It is the empirical verdict of the capital marketplace…that has rightly sealed the fate of nuclear power,’ the only debatable point is his choice of the word ‘rightly’.” Lovins’ response was livid: your comments “added things that weren’t there, lifted concepts out of context…, and used our work as a vehicle for your own pro-nuclear polemics.” Barbat’s response was conciliatory, encouraging readers to read the Lovins report and “pursue a constructive course faithfully.”
William Barbat’s CO2 Newsletters are remarkable documents, capturing a crucial moment in the history of climate science and politics. As I’ve discussed, they’re most meaningful when placed in context, which can take a bit of effort. Highly recommended reading, especially for historians!
Paul N. Edwards Collaborateur, Laboratoire de Population, Environnement, et Développement, Aix kMarseille Université, Marseille, France
Director (Emeritus), Program in Science, Technology & Society, Stanford University Professor of History and Information (Emeritus), University of Michigan
Thirty four years ago, on this day, September 2nd, 1992,
State Department participant in the negotiations, Dan Reifsnyder, offered the view that the concept of targets and timetables “captured and riveted the public’s imagination. It provided a simple litmus test of a country’s environment commitment. It required no painstaking feasibility analysis or tedious review of specific mitigation measures. It was political genius.” Speech to 1992 Seoul Symposium on ‘UNCED and Prospects for the Environmental Regime in the 21st Century’, September 2, 1992, Seoul, Korea.
Hecht, A. and Tirpak, D. 1995. Framework Agreement on Climate Change: A Scientific and Policy History. Climatic Change, 29, 371-402.
Reifsnyder, D. 1992. “The Policy of the USA on the Climate Change Convention,” unpublished presentation at the 1992 Seoul Symposium on UNCED
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2026, 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 States, under George H. W. Bush, had spent the period from 1989 to 1992 resolutely opposing a climate treaty that included targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries. His spine was stiffened by the usual suspects of oil companies, automakers, etc. organised partly within something called, the Global Climate Coalition. And their intransigence and their plausible threats to boycott the Earth Summit were successful, The proposal for targets and timetables were withdrawn. The Americans agreed to sign.
There was a calculation – perhaps correct, we’ll never know – at the time that a climate treaty without the United States was worthless, and if the price of the US’s signature was no targets and no timetables, it was a price worth paying, because you could get targets and timetables in via negotiations later. Some people will agree, others will disagree. For what it’s worth, I think I disagree, because it has caused havoc and mayhem and delay, but it was always going to be like that, I guess.
What I think we can learn from this is that there were multiple efforts to get binding emissions reductions targets. See, for example, Kyoto. It’s clear that the Americans would never agree to that. The Senate under the thumb of vested interests would never agree to that.
What happened next emissions have climbed, atmospheric concentrations have climbed, and we are completely and utterly fucked.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
The twelfth edition of the CO2 Newsletter, (Vol. 2, no. 6) published bi-monthly by American geologist William N. Barbat between 1979 and 1982 is live. You can download a pdf and see the full text here.
In this issue Barbat publishes a spiky (and will get spikier) correspondence with Amory Lovins, the “soft-energy paths” advocate. (Barbat was an “all in on nuclear or we are toast” guy). There are also extensive excerpts of the pivotal 1981 paper by Hansen et al., and much much more.
Fifty one years ago, on this day, September 1st, 1975,
Bert Bolin, ‘Energi och klimat’ presentation at Energy Council hearing, 1 Sept. 1975, Box A14:001, Appendix, Energifrågan. Olof Palmes Archive, Swedish Labour Movement´s Archive and Library Stockholm
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 331ppm. As of 2026, 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 Bert Bolin had been banging on about carbon dioxide build up since 1958-59. See, for example, at the National Academy of Sciences meeting in Washington, DC, which was reported here.
Anyway from the late 60s. Bolin’s work was beginning to gain some traction in Sweden. The Prime Minister, Olof Palme, had by this stage been briefed about CO2 build up by Herman Flohn, the German meteorologist.
Thespecificcontext was the first oil shock had concentrated everyone’s minds. And here we see Bolin, who had helped organise the 1974 GARP conference just outside Stockholm, talking to the Energy Council.
Xxx
What I think we can learn from this is that the Swedes were well ahead of the game. They knew what was at stake, not all Swedes, but the elite, certainly. And the 70s is really the decade where we got switched on to it all.
What happened next A Nuclear power referendum, Olaf Palm getting shot and killed.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Fifty two years ago, on this day, September 1st, 1974,
The SR-71 Blackbird sets (and holds) the record for flying from New York to London in the time of 1 hour, 54 minutes and 56.4 seconds at a speed of 1,435.587 miles per hour (2,310.353 km/h).
Dromology, Virilio etc
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 329ppm. As of 2026, 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 humans have been fascinated with flight and speed for a long time, certainly long before they could do it quicker than a galloping horse or camel. They had broken the speed of sound in level flight with Chuck Yeager in 1947 and here we see a spy plane, the Blackbird moving with very, very fast.
What I think we can learn from this is that your speed is all you’ll ever need, all you’ll ever need to know.
See also Paul Virilio and the concept of dromology.
What happened next – oh, we’re into hypersonic weapons now…
xxx
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Sixteen years ago, on this day, August 31st, 2010,
AUSTRALIA is failing to meet its international responsibilities by delaying the introduction of an emissions trading scheme, Mike Rann said yesterday.
After staying clear of ETS issues in the federal election campaign, the South Australian Premier told an Adelaide business lunch an ETS was urgently needed to spur international action on climate change.
“Only an emissions trading system allows the country to commit to a specific emissions performance and be assured of achieving it,” he said.
Akerman, P. 2010. ETS delay a national failure: Rann. The Australian, 1 September.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. As of 2026, 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, as per a couple of days ago, the first attempts to get a price on carbon were for a tax. After these were defeated, especially in 1995, attention had turned to an emissions trading scheme. In August 2003 the second attempt to get a trading scheme going under the Howard government was defeated.
Thespecificcontext was that Howard’s entire cabinet was united in the need for one. Howard blocked it for a month and came back, and then said “no”, and the spineless cretins all went along with it. Here we see South Australian Premier Mike Rann, who by this time had been taking a keen interest in renewables and the potential for South Australia to generate a lot of electricity from wind entering the fray; Rann had become premier of South Australia shortly before this.
What I think we can learn from this is that the opportunities, the technologies, the policies were all there, and if they had been implemented, they would not have stopped climate change. They would have slowed down the staggering increase in our emissions. They would have slowly, perhaps, bent the concentration curve down a bit, which might have bought us more time. These catastrophes that we’re facing might have been delayed by as much as I don’t know a decade?
What happened next In 2006 Howard had to do a U-turn in the face of public and political pressure. It did not save him. Labor’s Kevin Rudd then managed to fuck up the emissions trading scheme legislation and was replaced by Julia Gillard, about whom you can say many things, but she was at least competent within her framework. You cannot say that of Rudd.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. As of 2026, 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 efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change had been going on for quite a while. See, for example, the spectacular efforts around the second assessment report and the work of Ben Santer.
Thespecificcontext was that in the run up to the Copenhagen Climate Conference of the Parties in 2009 there had been a hack, presumably by Russians or paid Russian hackers of the University of East Anglia’s emails. This was the so-called “Climategate” scandal, an enormous nothing burger where individual comments were taken out of context. Meanwhile, efforts were made to go through all of the IPCC reports and find whatever weaknesses and errors could be found, this all pushed the Inter Academy Council to do an assessment of the IPCC, which was released on this day.
What I think we can learn from this is the attacks on science by people who proclaim the importance of the scientific method and Western civilization, blah blah, are unrelenting, sometimes quite sophisticated, and – for those who want to believe them – quite effective.
What happened next Attacks on the IPCC still happen, but frankly, the IPCC will go on producing assessment reports until the waters close over our heads, apparently the seventh assessment report is finally going to have some social science in there. Whoopsie do, because most of the social science around climate change that I’ve read is frankly misbegotten, which raises the question, Why aren’t I writing some of it myself, and then heading off to Stockholm for my Nobel prizes?
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Forty three years ago, on this day, August 29th, 1983, a gardening correspondent points to carbon dioxide build-up in his Daily Telegraph column…
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 343ppm. As of 2026, 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 was that newspapers had been reporting on the potential danger of carbon dioxide build up for decades, by this point there was quite a lot of activity in the 1980s, before Hansen’s pivotal 1988 testimony.
Thespecificcontext: Here we see someone who is interested in gardening, and therefore the seasons, and when spring arrives, and how long summer is, and how hot it is, etc acknowledging the existence of the greenhouse effect and the potential dangers.
What I think we can learn from this is that by the early 1980s the greenhouse effect was being acknowledged broadly. It was not particularly controversial.
What happened next finally in 1988 the scientific problem became a political issue. However, we failed to act in a sane or self-preservation style, and have now condemned ourselves, future generations, and most of the other species on this planet to unimaginable pain and suffering. Homo “sapiens” my extraordinarily fat arse.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
