Forty eight years ago, on this day, November 27th, 1978,
On this day in San Francisco, city mayor George Moscone and openly gay city supervisor Harvey Milk are assassinated by former supervisor Dan White.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 335ppm. 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 upsurge of the 1960s had led to all sorts of positive changes in US society, including the ability of openly homosexual people (men at first) to run for public office.
What I think we can learn from this – liberation comes with risks, as shown in the film Milk.
What happened next – the killer, Dan White, took his own life a few years later.
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 seven years ago, on this day, September 17th, 1978,
17 Sept 1978 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the “National Climate Program Act”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 335ppm. 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 there had been efforts, since about 1974 iirc, to beef up Federal support for/co-ordination of climate research (n.b. At this point carbon dioxide was only one of many different matters of concern).
The specific context was Various tenacious politicians kept on the case, despite repeated failures (George Brown etc).
What I think we can learn from this
Science requires funding and leadership. What happens when you have neither? Well, we’re finding out.
What happened next
By 1979 it was pretty clear to the smarter people in the room that the carbon dioxide build-up was the problem to watch. The politicians took a decade to convince.
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 seven years ago, on this day, June 22nd, 1978, a report about “Human Activity and Carbon Dioxide”, written by A.T. for the Energy Technology Strategy Unit was released.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that the bodies within the general energy/environment policy networks had been aware of carbon dioxide build-up since the late 1960s (it’s mentioned in the first Environment White Paper, published in May 1970, for example). There had been the drought of 1976, and in the same year the World Meteorological Organisation Executive had flagged C02 build-up as something to watch. By the time this report came to be written, the WMO had decided on hosting the first World Climate Conference, to be held in Geneva in February 1979.
The specific context was that ETSU was under some pressure to justify its existence, and this particular report was subject to criticism for perceived duplication (the IEA Clean Coal Research people were producing something at the same time).
What I think we can learn from this is that by the late 1970s, various UK science and technology groups were looking closely at carbon dioxide.
What happened next – the report sank without trace, having little or no influence on the “Climatic Change” report finally released in February 1980.
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 eight years ago, on this day, May 26th, 1978,
ADVISORY GROUP ON CLIMATE MEETING, MAY 26, 1978 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
Well, to quote from Joshua Howe
“In the mid-1970s, the largest and most inclusive of America’s science advocacy organizations, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), included climate change as a potential subject of focus as it began to consider new directions for the coming decade. In 1978, the AAAS convened an Advisory Group on Climate. The committee comprised researchers from a variety of disciplines associated with climate questions, including, among others, Roger Revelle, leading agronomist and later critic of consensus views on global warming Sylvan Wittwer, Robert White of the National Academy of Sciences Climate Research Board, Science editor-in-chief Philip Abelson, and California…”
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE, and PAUL S. SUTTER. “ADVISORY GROUP ON CLIMATE MEETING, MAY 26, 1978.” Making Climate Change History: Documents from Global Warming’s Past, edited by JOSHUA P. HOWE, University of Washington Press, 2017, pp. 128–31. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvcwnkd5.25. Accessed 15 May 2025.
What I think we can learn from this
It is almost fifty years since we had smart people sitting around nutting out the implications of this issue. That may give you pause to consider how that strategy has worked out, as strategies go…
What happened next
They produced their report. Other committees of Learned Gentlemen (and less frequently Gentlewomen) produced reports. The reports piled up.
1 Apr 2016 — ‘The Time To Act Is Now,’ Says Yellowing Climate Change Report Sitting In University Archive … The Onion. Privacy Polic
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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there were fierce debates within America about what “paths” should be taken, nuclear, coal, solar, etc. And this is just a cracking cartoon that does a really useful piece of work in explaining what’s going on.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
47 years ago today, The Fin published an article, by economics commentator Paddy McGuinness which helped the Center for Independent Studies gain popularity.
Further, there is this myth that shucks, grassroots battlers built the Centre for Independent Studies by the sweat of their brows. Er, no
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the post-war Keynesian consensus was crumbling thanks to oil shocks, stagflation, worker militancy, etc, and the goons who had been keeping their powder dry and forming networks – especially The Atlas network – were hoping to get a serious toe hold in Australia. The Institute of Public Affairs was not really fit for purpose, as far as they were concerned back then. So the Center for Independent Studies looked like a potential prospect, And so it came to pass with Anthony Fisher visiting twice etc etc (see above).
What we learn is that neoliberal ideas of selfishness, stupidity, short-sightedness, disdain for any talk of limits need to be nurtured. Because they’re so batshit crazy that turning them into “common sense” requires a hell of a lot of effort. This effort was being undertaken in the United States, especially, it had never gone away.
And Australia became “neoliberal” in 1983 with the arrival of the Hawke-Keating government and the intellectual capture of Paul Keating. We called it at that time, economic rationalism, Australia became a vastly more unequal, fearful and desperate society over the following 45 years.
Forty seven years ago, on this day, March 8th, 1978,
Senator WEBSTER (VICTORIA) (Minister for Science) – The baseline air pollution station at Cape Grim in Tasmania is viewed by the Government as being a particularly important installation. I have visited the base on one or two occasions and noted when I was there recently that there have been some results from the monitoring that has taken place. The honourable senator will know that monitoring has been in progress at Cape Grim since 1976 only. The tests which are currently being carried out there are particularly important so far as environmental conditions are concerned. Indeed, they might have much wider implications than just the effect of the environment. For instance, the surface ozone levels are being tested, as are the carbon dioxide levels, concentrations of carbon tetrachloride and fluoro carbons- that is, Freon-ll, which is discussed regularly as being an important constituent to monitor.
The period of measurement has been very short and I understand that no firm conclusion can be drawn on any trends which might be occurring within these programs. The results which have been obtained at Cape Grim to date suggest that carbon dioxide and Freon-ll are increasing as constituents in the atmosphere coming to Cape Grim. That is fairly important. Further data is required before it can be established whether these increased concentrations are part of a cyclical variation over a longer period or whether they are in actual fact indicative of a very definite trend in the atmosphere. That is the reason for the establishment of this baseline air pollution station, which is one of a group of stations placed around the world to monitor the atmosphere and to attempt to establish a baseline.
The Government intends in the future to establish the station permanently. Its management is under the control of the Department of Science, with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation playing an important role. We have put additional facilities and equipment down there within the last year. It is my wish that in the near future we shall see some move towards the establishment of a permanent station there.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that a few months earlier, the National Academy of Science in the US had released a report on energy and climate, and this had made front page news in the Canberra Times on sea level rise, etc.
Cape Grim as a measuring facility had been open for a couple of years. The CSIRO had an interest in CO2 build up, and was involved in some of the early work, especially Barrie Pittock and Graham Pearman ,and some politicians were aware of what was going on.
What I think we can learn from this is that we’ve been able to measure our doom for a long time, watching it unfold. The ultimate “press” disturbance.
What happened next
CO2, build-up kept bubbling under, bubbling through, an issue finally, finally broke through into public awareness in 1988.
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.
“An ad hoc group of expert members of the EC (WMO Executive Committee) met in Cairo from 10 to 12 January 1978 to outline essential elements of a World Climate Programme (WCP), and this program was approved by the thirtieth meeting of the EC in May 1978.
(Cain, 1983: 83)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that that the WMO had, of course, been looking at carbon dioxide build up falongside or in front of the United Nations Environment Program, the folks at IIASA and others (though still in the 1970s the number of scientists working on C02 build-up could comfortably fit in a conference hall, I think).
And there was a push to have a world climate conference. I think it had already been agreed by the time that this meeting took place.
What I think we can learn from this is that the scientific wheels for international collaboration grind, necessarily, relatively slowly. Which gives all the more amazing kudos to the IPCC in its early days for getting that first report out In 1990 having only been agreed at the end of 1988.
What happened next is that the World Climate Program got going, and the first world climate conference happened in Geneva in February of 1979 and there was a lack of consensus around the dangers of CO2, in large part to John Mason, who had been digging his heels in on this issue for a decade and a half
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:
FILL THIS IS!!! WITH PREEXISTING BLOGS (You can do the links during deadtimes)
Forty six years ago, on this day, December 13th, 1978, John Maddox (pictured – editor of Nature and very very much an opponent of the idea that carbon dioxide build up was something to worry about) presented a programme called One Degree Over on BBC Radio, with guests including famed Swedish scientists Bert Bolin.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the interdepartmental Panel on Climate Change was meeting and was going to really produce a report sometime soon. The World Meteorological Organisation was banging on the drum. The First World Climate Conference was due to take place in another two months, in February of 1979. And so, a radio programme about global warming was a good fit. The producer Michael Bright had already done stuff in the early 70s on “A Finite Earth?”, so was well-informed.
What we learn is that the Meteorological Office’s John Mason was there being a dick, but Bert Bolin was also being interviewed. And ultimately, people were informed about what was at stake.
What happened next. The new Thatcher government was uninterested in climate change. There was a discussion among Cabinet members about whether to even release the interdepartmental report. Thatcher used the climate issue to propose nuclear power at the G7 in June of ‘79. The interdepartmental report was finally released in February of 1980, to precisely no one’s interest or concern, except people like Crispin Tickell.
And the emissions kept climbing.
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-six years ago, on this day, November 21st, 1978, people in Sydney got a news broadcast about Trouble Ahead…
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the CSIRO had started to make serious noises about CO2. There’d been a documentary called A Change of Climate in 1976. There’d been, more importantly for these purposes, a conference being held on Phillip Island in Victoria. That was CSIRO Australian Academy of Science and someone else. And so it was a nice little hook for the journo, alongside some modelling work released.
What we learned is that by 1978, the carbon dioxide issue was being explained to people in Sydney. Whether they were paying much attention or not, is another question.
What happened next? CO2 kept appearing in the newspapers with perhaps a little bit more frequency. In 1980 the Canberra Times covered the conference hosted by the Australian Academy of Science. In 1983, the Australian covered the EPA’s report. But it wasn’t really till 1986/87/88 (especially ‘88) that the issue started getting serious traction. Meanwhile, the emissions kept climbing.
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.
