Categories
Media United States of America

March 22, 1982 – Chicago Trib front page story about … climate change

Forty four ago, on this day, March 22nd, 1982,


The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that journalists had been writing these sorts of stories for a long time; since the 60s, really, (since the 50s, but it was speculation). But from the late 60s, speculation was beginning to harden up.

The specific context was that scientifically, there had been the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in January of 1982 in Washington, DC. Hanson and Flohn, nd other people had made the statements they did, so maybe that helped nudge the Chicago Trib writer, Richard Kotulak (who is still alive).

What I think we can learn from this is that there were switched-on journalists in 1982 which is 44 years ago, and switched-on readers. We knew plenty.

What happened next The carbon dioxide problem had another moment in late 1983, but it didn’t really become front page news again until 1988 thanks to hard “problem entrepreneur” work by dedicated scientists.

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: 

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

March 22, 2007 – Unions talk good game on climate

March 22, 2007 – Fairfax tells its staff to Be Green, for an hour. 

March 22, 2012 – flash mobs and repertoire exhaustion

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

March 17, 1982 – An overview of US carbon dioxide/climate research is written. 

Forty four years ago, on this day, March 17th, 1982

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that since 1977, at the beginning of the Carter Administration, there had been workshops, seminars, conferences etc. By 1982 A LOT was known. 

The specific context was that this research was having precisely zero impact on policymakers, who were Reaganaut nutjobs

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew plenty and that we had our chances and we blew them.  

What happened next. The emissions kept climbing. And climbing. And so did the concentrations. 

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: 

March 17, 1976 – UK Weather boss dismisses climate change as “grossly exaggerated”

March 17, 2006 – Rio Tinto says “CCS is key to cutting greenhouse gases.” Oops, then…

March 17, 2007 – Edinburgh #climate action gathering says ‘Now’ the time to act

 March 17, 2014 – Carbon Bus sets off to the North

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

January 6th, 1982 – AAAS meeting warns about carbon dioxide build-up

On this day 43 years ago, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (created 1848) held its annual meeting, this time in Washington DC.  The climatologists held panels within that.

They were pretty blunt about what was on the way.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was the AAAS had been around for a long long time. By the late 1960s its annual gatherings were a site for scientific discussion of what was coming (see here and here).

The specific context was by the late 1970s the climate scientists were beginning to get sure of the eventual result of tipping huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (though they varied on time frames). AAAS was involved.

Efforts to get policymakers interested had had some success, but it all fell in a heap after the Reagan Administration came in in January 1981.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have known for a long time. This. Was. Not. A. State. Secret.

[LINK]

What happened next. The climate stuff at the AAAS meeting was covered in newspapers around the US, sometimes featuring quite prominently. The scientific work continued. And continued.

1988 was the pivotal year. [LINK]

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 6, 1883 – The New York Times reports on the Atmosphere

January 6, 1989 – “Cloud-Radiative Forcing and Climate: Results from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment” 

January 6, 1995 –  Australian business interests battle a carbon tax with “nobody else is acting” argument

Categories
United Kingdom

December 19, 1982 – BBC on “the State of the Planet”

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.

Also on this day: 

December 19, 1988 – the launch of “Ark”

December 19, 1991- Will UN negotiations go as usual and “commit us to global catastrophe”?

December 19, 2010 – CCS dies in Queensland

December 19, 2017 – BHP exits World Coal Association.

Categories
United Kingdom

May 19, 1982 – House of Lords debate on “Coal and the Environment”

Forty three years ago, on this day, May 19th, 1982, the House of Lords held a debate on “Coal and the Environment”

Earl of Halsbury (this chap – who introduced the amendment that became, well, Section 28) said the following

Take, for example, the problem of the glasshouse effect and so on—the rise of carbon dioxide —when nothing we do in this country can make very much difference to the carbon dioxide content in the world, but of course what the world does can make quite a big difference to the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere over this country. But the latest and most refined mathematical calculations—these have reached me only in the last few weeks, so they are stop press news—indicate that the atmospheric effects are a good deal more sophisticated than was originally thought. We may be going to be faced, for example, with much more in the way of local, than global, effects; there will be droughts in places where we are no longer accustomed to having droughts, and there will be floods where we are not accustomed to having floods. But all that lies a long way in the future.

Plant photosynthesis is at an optimum when the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is three times what it is. Maybe that is what the long-term historical average has always been and plants have adapted to it. Maybe we are merely living in a carbon dioxide world at the present time. The great storehouse of carbon dioxide is the sea, and the sea and the atmosphere interchange carbon dioxide—nobody knows the details. If the sea warms up, it emits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and if it cools down it absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Having absorbed it, it can fix some of it as coral, future limestone rocks and so on. If we want to know more about that we must study not the atmosphere but oceanography because the two interreact and we shall never understand the atmosphere until we understand the oceans or vice versa. It may be a rather strange conclusion to say that if you want to know about the glasshouse effect, do not bother about measuring the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere but study oceanography. It is an example of how one adjusts one’s priorities if one thinks in the right timescale.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Labour government had set up the “Commission on Energy and the Environment” in 1977. It decided its first report would be on Coal. Brian Flowers, its chair, was persuaded by John Mason to soft-pedal on the carbon dioxide atmosphere issue. By the time the report finally came out, the Conservatives were in charge, and CENE basically got buried. This parliamentary debate is against that backdrop.

What I think we can learn from this

Official reports and commissions of the Great and the Good might be worth reading or then again, they might not be worth a bucket of warm spit. It depends both on the official terms of reference and the unspoken (but still official!) ones.

What happened next  CENE disappeared. The climate issue it ignored did not.

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: 

May 19, 1937 – Guy Callendar’s carbon dioxide warning lands on someone’s desk

May 19, 1957 – LA Times asks “Is your smoke helping to melt polar icecaps?” – All Our Yesterdays

May 19, 1993 – President Clinton begins to lose the BTU battle…

May 19, 1997 – an oil company defects from the denialists. Sort of.

May 19, 1997 – BP boss says “If we are to take responsibility for the future of our planet, then it falls to us to begin to take precautionary action now.”

Categories
United States of America

March 25, 1982 – CBS Evening News runs 3 minute story on the greenhouse effect. Can’t say we weren’t warned…

Forty three years ago, on this day, March 25th, 1982,

The CBS Evening News for March 25, 1982 included a two minute and 50 second story by David Culhane on the greenhouse effect. Chemist Melvin Calvin raised the threat of global warming, Representative Al Gore called for further research, and James Kane of the Energy Department said there was no need for haste. (Sachsman, 2000)

Carbon Dioxide and Climate : The Greenhouse Effect hearings of the House Committee on Science and Technology, 97th Congress, March 25 1982 https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002758682

See the detailed account in Nathaniel Rich’s Losing Earth

(also in C02 Newsletter Vol 3 No 3, March-April 1982)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

that the CO2 issue was something journalists had been particularly interested in since maybe the late 1970s and although Reagan and Republicans were in the ascendant, that didn’t mean that Congress had stopped chipping away. And I think in ‘82 was the first time Al Gore had held hearings

Congressional hearings are a nice hook – the experts are in town, so you can grab them for an interview. And you can get two or three minutes of quality journalism relatively cheaply and predictably. 

What I think we can learn from this that Americans were being tolerably well-informed about future threats. 43 years ago. It was on the television for Christ’s sake – national news. 

What happened next

CO2 kept bubbling away in the American news, famously in ‘83 with the EPA report “can we delay a greenhouse warming?” (no),  and on and on at a relatively low level until it properly exploded in the summer of 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.

Also on this day: 

March 25, 1982 – congressional hearings and CBS Evening News repor

March 25, 1988- World Meteorological Organisation sends IPCC invites.

March 25, 2013 – Australian Department of Climate Change axed

Categories
Academia United States of America

September 20, 1982 – “Carbon Dioxide, Science and Consensus” event

Forty two years ago, on this day, September 20th, 1982

Look for a file marked “carbon dioxide – climate change” and perhaps to your amazement you will read in this publication details of Reagan’s two-day gathering titled Carbon Dioxide, Science and Consensus, September 19-23, 1982. President Reagan’s right hand man and head of his Carbon Dioxide Research Division, Frederick A. Koomanoff, started the meeting and wrote into the record and with President Reagan’s and Congress’ full backing ..

“The Executive Branch and the Congress clearly regard the CO2 issue as one deserving serious, sustained and systematic investigation. The credit for this lies in the good science and solid research that has and is being performed.”

Will the wonders of that man ever stop? Reagan’s right hand man wasn’t all, he came at the urgency of the CO2 crisis two-fisted when his left hand man chipped in with even more in affirmation of the joint executive and congressional commitment to work to resolving climate change. That left hand was James C. Greene, Science Consultant to the Congress’ Committee on Science and Technology and he was the whip at the meeting there to make sure the attending scientists were fully engaged with the urgency of this topic.

“A veil hangs ominously over the earth, from pole to pole, over all the continents, and over the oceans,” Greene noted, adding, “To a significant degree, man has put it there. It is called simply enough, carbon dioxide pollution. If today’s worst case scenario becomes tomorrow’s reality, it will be too late to reverse the atmospheric buildup or to ameliorate the severe adverse human and environmental impacts of this pollutant. However, if we quickly develop a sufficient research program to provide the necessary answers, there may still be time to rend the veil or at least keep it from reaching the dimensions of disaster. This is a major goal of the Federal carbon dioxide research program and it requires the cooperation of scientists, governmental officials, and the citizens.”

President Reagan through his carefully scripted right and left hand men urged the scientists participating in the conference to not merely be scientists but rather to become energetic advocates, as they revealed in the prepared statement,

“Involvement of scientists at all levels of public policy development is absolutely necessary if correct decisions are to be made — C.P. Snow expressed it best in his book Science and Government, when he wrote, ‘I believe scientists have something to give which our kind of society is desperately short of … that is foresight.’ That is why I want scientists active in all the levels of government. You must provide the information and the foresight — no one else can. The carbon dioxide issue is a case in point,” and then concluded, “Until recent years, scientists were not even certain if the carbon dioxide buildup would increase or decrease the Earth’s temperature. Now, the controversy is, what is of impact and how long before it will be felt worldwide?”

So Dear Republicans fellow countrymen and women of every sort, remember the teachings of one of your heroes who knew what was important and stop with the blustering nonsense. Yes I know that the cost of doing the right thing is today being spun into a spectacular trillion dollar budget figure and comes with a cabal of folks all too eager to be appointed bankers, or is that banksters, of that money but we have a solution to that carpetbagger problem.

http://russgeorge.net/2015/12/09/dear-mr-president-please-return-to-your-old-haunts/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Ronald Reagan was being a complete prick on all things environmental. Or rather the people who would put the meat-puppet Reagan into Office were being pricks, They had put James Watt and Anne Gorsuch in with the goal of destroying the Department of the Interior and the EPA. But these two asshats were making enemies too quickly and not making good results.

Someone came up with a bright idea of holding a conference which I know virtually nothing about- whose idea, what purpose what invite list but anyway, so I am speculating a bit.

What we learn. It happened and it probably acted as a safety valve so that some of the more right leaning willing to go along with whatever they were told for the sake of their careers type scientists could point to that event and say “it’s not entirely fair to accuse the Reagan administration of doing nothing.” These sorts of events or documents, useful earthing devices so that the buildup of static electricity can be dissipated harmlessly. Kind of like a lightning rod.

What happened next. Reagan continued to be an asshat, albeit an increasingly senile one (there were rumours that some around him were considering invoking the 25th Amendment).

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: 

September 20, 1893 – first American-made gasoline-powered car hits the road.

September 20, 2013 – CCS project mothballed/killed.

Categories
United States of America

May 28, 1982 – “International Conference on Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Plant Productivity” 

Forty years ago, on this day, May 28th 1982, the biologists were at it again,

“Duke University in Durham, North Carolina on August 4-5, 1977 for “Workshop on Anticipated Plant Responses to Global Carbon Dioxide Enrichment”…. Five years later, on May 23-28, 1982, a similar “International Conference on Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Plant Productivity” was held in Athens, Georgia.”

(Idso, 1982: 72- 73)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had five years previously been a conference on essentially, “rising carbon dioxide levels will be great for plant growth. So there’s nothing else to worry about.” And this was a sequel, I don’t know why it happened. Maybe they had some money leftover or something or they just wanted a jolly and to catch up with old friends.

What we learn is that as late as 2023. “CO2 is plant food and therefore nothing to worry about” is still being circulated by intellectual giants like Richard Tice, of Reform UK (a private company masquerading as a political party). I mean, it’s just embarrassing for our species. But there you have it. 

What happened next Sherwood Idso has been the go-to guy for denial and lukewarm-ism for a long time.

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: 

May 28, 1954 – Will we control the weather?!

May 28, 1956 – Time Magazine reports on “One Big Greenhouse”

May 28, 1969 – “Ecology and Politics in America” teach-in, Berkeley

Categories
United States of America

March 25, 1982 – congressional hearings and CBS Evening News report

Forty two years ago, on this day, March 25th 1982, there was network news coverage of “The Greenhouse Effect”.

The CBS Evening News for March 25, 1982 included a two minute and 50 second story by David Culhane on the greenhouse effect. Chemist Melvin Calvin raised the threat of global warming, Representative Al Gore called for further research, and James Kane of the Energy Department said there was no need for haste. 

(Sachsman, 2000)

You can see the clip here

Carbon Dioxide and Climate : The Greenhouse Effect hearings of the House Committee on Science and Technology, 97th Congress, March 25 1982 https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002758682

See also https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6584134

See also the detailed account in Nathaniel Rich’s Losing Earth

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that climate change was becoming a real cause of concern among scientists and a very small band of civil servants and elected politicians who were in close touch with these scientists. There had already been hearings in 1980, led by Senator Paul Tsongas, who was communicating with scientists like Wally Broecker. And here was another set of hearings, this time within Congress, with Al Gore in the mix too.  It’s also happening just after the AAAS meeting in Washington, DC, with James Hansen and Herman Flohn expressing real concerns. It’s happening just as the Reagan administration, believe it or not, has got the “carbon dioxide science and consensus” meeting going. So the timing is good. 

What we learn is that within the policy subsystems, people are building meetings, reports, seminars, networks, fighting to edge the issue closer and closer to being “on the agenda.” You can say what you like about Al Gore – I’m sure much of it is true. But he has persisted. It’d be interesting to know what Roger Revelle thought of Gore’s efforts in the 80s. 

What happened next? There were more hearings in 84. And then in 85, the whole issue started to be turbo-charged, because of a meeting of scientists in Austria, in the city of Villach. And after that, they kept trying harder and harder. And yes, got it onto the agenda, in the summer of 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.

Also on this day: 

March 25, 1988- World Meteorological Organisation sends IPCC invites.

March 25, 2013 – Australian Department of Climate Change axed

Categories
United States of America

January 4,1982 – Global 2000 Report updated

Forty two ago, on this day, January 4th 1982, a symposium “The Global 2000 Report to the President: The Authors Update Their Work”, was held in Washington DC.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that under Jimmy Carter, the Global 2000 report had been produced. See here and here. And now two years on, waiting months on, though producing an update, and presumably tying it to the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at which Jim Hansen, Herman Flohn, and others were to speak

What we can learn is that determined people have been trying to keep the issue of environmental degradation/destruction/humanity’s Death Wish, on the political agenda. And to put it back on the political agenda when it gets “de-agendized.” Tried tirelessly, for a very long time; that they did not succeed is not really their fault. Or maybe it is, I don’t know. And they were clever in trying to combine voices and build a sense of momentum, a “one two” punch as it were. And you see this again later, in June of 1998, and 1988, when Hansen gives testimony, just before the Toronto conference on the Changing Atmosphere.

What happened next, I think they were largely ignored at the time. Reagan was deep into his sabre-rattling and Cold War bullshit (that almost got us all fried, btw). Global 2000 people kept trying and were met in 1983 with “get your retaliation in first” tactics from our friends at the Heritage Foundation. And it would be another six years before climate change really, really broke through. 

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

Dearborn, N. W. (1983). Global 2000: Radar for the ship of state. Futures, 15(2), 111-125

Also on this day: 

January 4, 1977 – US politician introduces #climate research legislation