Tag: 1984

Categories
Science Scientists United Kingdom

December 13, 1984 – Thatcher warned about climate change. Again.

On this day 41 years ago, the Chief Scientific Advisor, B.N. Nicholson wrote a report which included this –

The predicted changes in climate accompanying increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other gases will have widespread and possibly catastrophic impacts on agriculture, energy supply and demand, sea-defences etc.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 352ppm. 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 by the early 1980s climate scientists were pretty sure that there was a quick (in geological terms basically instantaneous) warming on the way. Not that anyone in “power” seemed to give a damn.

The specific context was that Thatcher had already been warned about carbon dioxide build-up by her previous Chief Scientific Advisor, John Ashworth. Meanwhile, by 1984 it was becoming obvious to scientists who could add up that there was serious trouble ahead.

What we learn.  There were plenty of warnings – our “leaders” did not lead.

What happened next. Thatcher was finally convinced in 1988, and the next phase started – one of empty promises.

Also on this day

December 13, 1967 – Sweden begins to save the world…

December 13, 1973 – Edward Heath announces Three Day Week

December 13, 1978 – BBC Radio talks about climate change “One Degree Over” – All Our Yesterdays

December 13, 1984 – Christian Science Monitor monitors the #climate science – ooops.

Categories
France Industry Associations International processes

November 14, 1984 – first World Industry Conference on Environmental Management begins in Versailles, France.

On this day 41 years ago, a 3-day hold-hands-and-BELIEVE-in-the-cleansing-and-redemptive-power-of-technology-and-markets event begins.

“No one doubts that the world environment is in a parlous state. With millions threatened, and thousands dying from starvation in Ethiopia as a consequence of drought and an eroded soil, with tropical forests still being obliterated in the face of a woeful ignorance as to the effects on world climate, with equally serious problems arising in the northern hemisphere because of acid rain, and with concern over the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it is clear that mankind must again come to appreciate the integral role that the environment plays in his survival. No one doubts either that industry and the process of industrialization together comprise a major factor of change in the environment, bringing more and more of the earth’s surface under the domain of man and his artefacts.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 344ppm. 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 longer-term context is that industry had been making promises about cleaning up its act for a good decade now.

The shorter-term context is that there had been the 10 year anniversary of the Stockholm conference a couple of years before, and rumblings and mumblings about carbon dioxide build-up were growing. The French were/always are in the market for hosting this sort of tosh.

What we learn – talk has been cheap for a very long time. These events serve an important social function, allowing people to believe that our Lords and Masters are more than fearful greedy meatpuppets.

What happened next – the climate issue broke through a few ppm later – in 1988. For all the good it did us. Oh well.

Also on this day: 

 November 14, 1977 – Met Office boss forced to think about #climate change – first interdepartmental meeting…

November 14, 2005 – Downing St blocked with coal – All Our Yesterdays

November 14, 2013, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s 50th #climate speech

November 14, 2014 – US and China sign climate deal, in part to troll Australian Prime Minister – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Business Responses France

November 14, 1984 – first World Industry Conference on Environmental Management begins in Versailles, France.

On this day 41 years ago, a 3-day hold-hands-and-BELIEVE-in-the-cleansing-and-redemptive-power-of-technology-and-markets event begins.

“No one doubts that the world environment is in a parlous state. With millions threatened, and thousands dying from starvation in Ethiopia as a consequence of drought and an eroded soil, with tropical forests still being obliterated in the face of a woeful ignorance as to the effects on world climate, with equally serious problems arising in the northern hemisphere because of acid rain, and with concern over the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it is clear that mankind must again come to appreciate the integral role that the environment plays in his survival. No one doubts either that industry and the process of industrialization together comprise a major factor of change in the environment, bringing more and more of the earth’s surface under the domain of man and his artefacts.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 344ppm. 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 longer-term context is that industry had been making promises about cleaning up its act for a good decade now.

The shorter-term context is that there had been the 10 year anniversary of the Stockholm conference a couple of years before, and rumblings and mumblings about carbon dioxide build-up were growing. The French were/always are in the market for hosting this sort of tosh.

What we learn – talk has been cheap for a very long time. These events serve an important social function, allowing people to believe that our Lords and Masters are more than fearful greedy meatpuppets.

What happened next – the climate issue broke through a few ppm later – in 1988. For all the good it did us. Oh well.

Also on this day: 

 November 14, 1977 – Met Office boss forced to think about #climate change – first interdepartmental meeting…

November 14, 2005 – Downing St blocked with coal – All Our Yesterdays

November 14, 2013, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s 50th #climate speech

November 14, 2014 – US and China sign climate deal, in part to troll Australian Prime Minister – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United Kingdom

 October 29, 1984 – Lord Ashby speaks out

Forty one years ago, on this day, October 29th, 1984, the House of Lords got schooled.

Lord Ashby – There are the dangers of the long-term effects of gases causing a change in the cloak of ozone in the upper atmosphere; and then there is the most ominous teaser in the pack, which is the possible effects on climate of something we know for certain is going on, and that is the accumulation of carbon dioxide from the burning of coal and oil. Only last week, in the scientific journal Nature, four books were reviewed by an authority on that subject. Every one of the writers of those four books takes a serious view of the long-term dangers that may—scientists will never go beyond using the word “may” in public—come from the accumulation of carbon dioxide. The commission warns, I think very rightly, that the social and economic consequences of climatic change which might be caused by this in the next century “could be very great indeed”. Not much perhaps can be done; but something could be done now. The Government’s disregard for this long-range problem is perhaps illustrated by the way the Commission on Energy and Environment has been put into abeyance at a time when the issue finally ought to be challenged with this very important possible future time bomb. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1984-10-29/debates/e5fae6df-ecfd-4e0d-a8a6-ce67bf780fe3/LordsChamber

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 345ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 British scientists and civil servants had been working on carbon dioxide build-up and what to do about it in the second half of the 1970s. Then Thatcher showed she really was not at all interested and that, combined with the lukewarm First World Climate Conference, put everything on the backburner. But Eric Ashby, for it is he, who had known about the problem since he was the first chair of the Royal Commission on Environment Pollution – The RCEP’s first report, in 1971, had a reasonable section on CO2 build-up

The specific context was four books had been published and were reviewed:

Man-Made Carbon Dioxide and Climatic Change: A Review of the Scientific Problems. By P.S. Liss and A.J. Crane. Geo Books, Regency House, 34 Duke Street, Norwich NR3 3AP, UK: 1983. Pp.127. Hbk £8.50, $17;pbk £3.95, $7.80.

Carbon Dioxide — Emissions and Effects (Report No. ICTIS/TR18). By Irene M. Smith. IEA Coal Research, 14–15 Lower Grosvenor Place, London SW1W 0EX: 1982. Pp.132. £10 (IEA countries), £20 (elsewhere).

Climate and Energy Systems: A Review of their Interactions By Jill Jäger. Wiley: 1983. Pp.231. £19.95, $39.95.

Our Threatened Climate: Ways of Averting the CO2 Problem through Rational Energy Use By Wilfrid Bach. Reidel: 1983. Pp.368. $29, Dfl. 95, £24.25.

Perry, J. Much ado about CO2. Nature 311, 681–682 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1038/311681a0

Ashby was using that as a hook to talk about the problem.

What I think we can learn from this – it was there. The scientific elite knew about it. But what could they do, with a planet-trasher in charge?

What happened next – the problem finally became an issue in the middle 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.

References

Obituary: Lord Ashby | The Independent | The Independent

Also on this day: 

October 29, 1991 – Australia told to pay more than poor countries to h

Categories
United Kingdom

October 18, 1984 – Nature reviews four climate change books

On this day forty one years ago, American scientist John Perry reviewed four books about climate change for Nature.

Man-Made Carbon Dioxide and Climatic Change: A Review of the Scientific Problems. By P.S. Liss and A.J. Crane. Geo Books, Regency House, 34 Duke Street, Norwich NR3 3AP, UK: 1983. Pp.127. Hbk £8.50, $17;pbk £3.95, $7.80.

Carbon Dioxide — Emissions and Effects (Report No. ICTIS/TR18). By Irene M. Smith. IEA Coal Research, 14–15 Lower Grosvenor Place, London SW1W 0EX: 1982. Pp.132. £10 (IEA countries), £20 (elsewhere).

Climate and Energy Systems: A Review of their Interactions By Jill Jäger. Wiley: 1983. Pp.231. £19.95, $39.95.

Our Threatened Climate: Ways of Averting the CO2 Problem through Rational Energy Use By Wilfrid Bach. Reidel: 1983. Pp.368. $29, Dfl. 95, £24.25.

Perry, J. Much ado about CO2. Nature 311, 681–682 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1038/311681a0

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 345ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 by the early 1980s the evidence was basically in, as far as the scientists were concerned.

Carbon dioxide trapped heat.

Carbon dioxide was building up in the atmosphere.

More heat would be trapped.

You can make it more complex if you like…

The specific context was that the climate issue wasn’t going away, just because Reagan and Thatcher were ignoring it…

What I think we can learn from this – we knew plenty.

What happened next – 

See Lord Ashby in House of Lords a few days later (am blogging it)

Also on this day

October 18, 1973 – “how on earth do you stop using fossil fuels?” 

October 18, 1974 – Weinberg’s “Global Effects of Man’s Production of Energy” published 

 October 18, 1983 – All US news networks run “greenhouse effect” stories

October 18, 1983- US news networks tell the truth about #climate. Yes, 1983.

Categories
Academia Propaganda

“Books, books, and more books”: a key climate delayer technique

The battle for the public mind is never-ending. And one of the key weapons remains… wait for it… books.

This below is inspired by reading Royce Kurmelovs’ review of a new tiresome pronuclear abundance tome that makes utterly baseless allegations about the funding behind “Friends of the Earth.” (Full disclosure, Royce is a friend, we’ve collaborated in the past and I had a very minor role in the research of this review).

A book is a “hook” – the author(s) get, er, booked, to appear on radio shows, tv programmes. The book is excerpted in newspapers, which are then quoted by columnists in papers and by politicians in parliament. The book can be the excuse for a tour of cities. The book gets you on podcasts. The book can get turned into instagram posts and tiktok videos.

None of this is new, but it is worth remembering.

Two particular (albeit American) examples should be part of any intelligent media-observer’s toolkit.

The first is the statement by Julian Simon about what the “conservative” movement needed. This from Jane Meyer tells you what you need to know.

His father evidently lost his mother’s fortune, motivating Simon to make his own. On Wall Street, he became a hugely successful partner at Salomon Brothers, where he was an early leader in the lucrative new craze for leveraged buyouts. But what neither Olin nor Simon had was influence over the next generation. “We are careening with frightening speed towards collectivism,” Simon warned.
Only an ideological battle could save the country, in Simon’s view. “What we need is a counter-intelligentsia. … [It] can be organized to challenge our ruling ‘new class’ — opinion makers,” Simon wrote. “Ideas are weapons — indeed the only weapons with which other ideas can be fought.” He argued, “Capitalism has no duty to subsidize its enemies.” Private and corporate foundations, he said, must cease “the mindless subsidizing of colleges and universities whose departments of politics, economics and history are hostile to capitalism.” Instead, they “must take pains to funnel desperately needed funds to scholars, social scientists and writers who understand the relationship between political and economic liberty,” as he put it. “They must be given grants, grants, and more grants in exchange for books, books, and more books.”
Under Simon’s guidance, the Olin foundation tried to fund the new “counterintelligentsia.” At first, it tried supporting little-known colleges where conservative ideas — and money — were welcome. But Simon and his associates soon realized that this was a losing strategy. If the Olin foundation wanted impact, it needed to infiltrate prestigious universities, especially the Ivy League.

Mayer 2016 (emphasis added).

    The second is the Joan Peters debacle. Somebody wrote a book, published under her name in 1984, about how there weren’t any Palestinians in the 19th century – “a land without people for a people without a land” stuff, and the US academics lapped it up. Then along came Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky… I URGE you to read Chomsky’s account, here.

    The beauty of the book technique is that – if it comes from a ‘reputable’ publisher – it gives any old bullshit argument a heft, a solidity, it doesn’t deserve. It sells copies (publisher happy) and the author gets exposure, and bandwidth gets taken up, nonsense talking points get repeated and regurgitated, no matter how many times the book is “demolished” (see Chomsky above)

    See also

    “Why are they lying to our children?” – what a 40 year old propaganda campaign can tell us about today (and tomorrow’s) cultural battles. #Climate #CorporatePropaganda
      Categories
      Science United Kingdom

      June 4, 1984 – John Houghton of the Met Office wants research

      On this day June 4, 1984, 41 years ago, the new boss of the Met Office, John Houghton, wanted to get cracking on the climate issue,

      The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 345ppm.  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.

      Here’s a photo of Houghton in 1985

      Source – the Guardian’s obituary

      The broader context for this was that the previous Met Office boss, John Mason, was pretty opposed to the idea that carbon dioxide was a problem (that is not to say he actively blocked the excellent scientists working on the issue at the Met Office). Houghton had very different views, thank goodness.

      The specific context was by late 1983 various reports and meetings had taken place. It was clear carbon dioxide was going to be a serious topic of research and – sooner or later – policy attention.

      What I think we can learn is this: 

      As human beings – we are smart enough to cause problems for ourselves, and smart enough to see the underlying causes. But actually fixing them? Harder…

      As “active” citizens – see above.

      Academics might want to ponder – their role in continuing the mystification, either by studying the wrong things, or “communicating” to the wrong people, or to the right people in terrible ways.

      What happened next: Houghton kept going, as did his Met Office colleagues. Houghton had to retire as Met Office boss in 1990, and then became first head of Working Group 1 of the IPCC.

      On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

      Heaps of stuff about the Met Office etc

      References

       (as academic as possible, with DOIs if they exist.) hyperlinks.

      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).

      Also on this day: 

      June 4, 1979 – Daily Mail reports on climate change without losing its mind – All Our Yesterdays

      June 4 , 1989, 1992, 1996 – from frantic concern to contempt for everyone’s future…

      June 4, 1998 – A New South Wales premier signs a carbon credit trade…

      Categories
      United Kingdom

      March 12, 1984 – A Conservative MP worries about carbon dioxide build-up

      On this day, March 12, 1984, conservative MP for Carshalton Nigel Forman, had this to say…

      March 12 1984 – I shall add a word about the more remote problems, which are just as important. Are the Government prepared to take an international initiative of an appropriate kind to limit the use of chlorofluorocarbons, which may deplete the stratospheric ozone? Are the Government prepared to pay more attention to the possible dangers of the “greenhouse effect” on the globe as a consequence of the increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Nobody knows about these matters for certain, but one knows for sure that the more investigation that is done in good time, the more we shall be able to minimise any risks that may ensue. Since the greatest contribution to the “greenhouse effect” comes from the burning of fossil fuels, does that not have important implications for our energy policies and those of other countries, since we are not the largest burners of fossil fuels?  

      https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1984/mar/12/environmental-pollution

      The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

      The context was that in October 1983 the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States had released a report called “Can we delay a greenhouse warming?” (spoiler, no, no we cant).  This had received some press coverage in the UK, and publications like Nature and New Scientist were covering the issue too.


      What we learn  Backbencher politicians were alert to the issue, while those “At The Top” were studiously looking elsewhere…

      What happened next

      Forman’s intellect and independence clearly got in the way, but eventually, to quote from Wikipedia

      “The omission of Nigel Forman, from successive ministerial reshuffles over the past few years has surprised many at Westminster when several apparently less talented politicians have secured top posts. But after 16 years in the Commons, he has become an under-secretary at the education department”[8]

      He resigned from that post in late 1992, for reasons never disclosed (someone had a dirt file on him? Who knows) and he lost his seat to a Lib Dem in the 1997 landslide. He died in 2017, having had an academic and consultancy after-life.

      Also on this day: 

      March 12, 1974 – Clean Coal advert in the Wall Street Journal

      Categories
      United States of America

      March 5, 1984 – presentation on “Global Climate Change Due to Human Activities”

      Forty one years ago, on this day, March 5th, 1984,

      March 5 1984 Dickinson presentation “Global Climate Change Due to Human Activities” at Proceedings

      HIGH ALTITUDE REVEGETATION WORKSHOP NO. 6

      Colorado State University. Fort Collins, Colorado, March 5-6, 1984 https://mountainscholar.org/bitstream/10217/3125/1/is_53.pdf#page=14 

      The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

      The context was that the NCAR had been looking at climatic change for a long time, since its founding in the mid 60s. (See Spencer Weart’s book The Discovery of Global Warming for more details). And the people at NCAR knew what was going on. 

      This was a minor conference or gathering in Colorado, which is where NCAR is based. It doesn’t really pass the “so what” test, except to say that, by the mid-1980s especially in the aftermath of the EPA, “can we delay a greenhouse warming?” report in October of the previous year, the problem of carbon dioxide build up was becoming well understood by intelligent, informed people. And the cynic might chime in and say,”What, 2% of the population?” 

      What I think we can learn from this

      Is that “we” have known for a very long time.

      What happened next

      Four years later, in ‘88 the issue, the problem became an issue Since then, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have gone up another 88 zero parts per million, and human emissions have gone up about 70% I guess

      And crucially, we continued with deforestation. The oceans are more acidic and less able to act as sinks, and it’s all going to go tits up very soon. You breeders are gonna be full of regrets.

      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 5, 1950 – first computer simulation of the weather…

      March 5, 2007 – Nick Minchin versus reality, again

      March 5, 2011 – Australian “wingnuts are coming out of the woodwork”

      Categories
      Carbon Capture and Storage United States of America

      December 1, 1984 – they’re talking about CCS already…

      Forty years ago, on this day, December 1st, 1984, Carbon Capture and Storage got an early study,

       Systems study for the removal, recovery and disposal of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel power plants in the US

      Abstract

      This report examines the feasibility of preventing man-made CO/sub 2/ from entering the atmosphere. Utilities produce about 30% of the emissions of CO/sub 2/, therefore, the system is first applied in this study to the power plant effluents. An absorption/stripping stack gas scrubbing and regeneration process was chosen for the present system study. An improved solvent process is used and the process is integrated with the power plant operations to improve the efficiency of the combined plant. Three methods of disposal are selected and appropriately applied, depending on geographical proximity to the source power plants. The US Department of Energy Federal Region Divisions for utility power plants was utilised to aggregate and design the disposal system. The energy requirement to drive the various parts of the system is estimated. This is a first order design and cost estimation system study, made primarily for the purpose of determining the order of magnitude feasibility and economic costs for the removal, recovery, and disposal of CO/sub 2/ from power plant stacks in the US. The base year chosen for the systems analysis was 1980 and all capacity and costs are indexed to that year.

      Authors: Steinberg, M; Cheng, H C; Horn, F

      Publication Date: 1984-12-01

      Research Org.: Brookhaven National Lab., Upton, NY (USA)

      OSTI Identifier: 6084354 published 2 years later as https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ep.670050409?saml_referrer

      The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 345ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

      The context was that CCS had got its first serious push in 1977, with the publication of an article by Cesar Marchetti, an Italian physicist who had been asked to think about the issue by our good friends a the International Institute for Advanced Systems Analysis,t IIASA, never-knowingly out-technofixed. Albanese had done some work in the late 1970s, and this was a follow-up

      What I think we can learn from this is that CCS has been talked about for almost 50 years. Still not delivering any detectable-compared-to-annual-emissions ‘savings’ (EOR doesn’t count, for obvious reasons).

      What happened next. There was a spasm of interest in the late 1980s, but for real hype, you have to wait until the early 2000s.

      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: 

      December 1, 1976 – Met Office boss still saying carbon dioxide build-up a non-issue

      December 1, 2005 – David Cameron says “low carbon living should not be a weird or worthy obligation”

      December 1, 2008 – Climate Change Committee fanboys carbon capture