Tag: 1996

Categories
Australia

April 19 1996 – Ark hits the world wide web..

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, April 19th, 1996, climate campaigners took to the web…,

Australian environmental education has been launched onto an international stage, with local group ARK Australia yesterday going live on the Internet with a World Wide Web site called Planet Ark.

The product of a significant cooperative effort involving the Seven Network , Austereo, Reuters and Sanitarium, the site will provide on-demand 24-hour environmental radio news on the Net, along with environmental software and celebrity campaigns that can be downloaded free of charge, including the “Save the Planet” videos featuring stars such as Pierce Brosnan, Dustin Hoffman, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman.

Helen Meredith. 1996. Planet Ark’s world-first on the Net. The Australian Financial Review, 19 April 1996 p48

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the World Wide Web and cyberspace were just arriving. And therefore it was newsworthy when someone set up a website. The deeper context is that the Australian outpost of Ark seemed to have taken some sort of hold, though it had sunk in the UK.

What we learn is that celebrities have always been yammering about environmental issues, but are also often celebrities that are spectacularly badly placed. Because pretty much by definition, their lifestyles are high carbon, and they can be accused of being hypocrites, so out of touch, e.g. “Carbon Cate” in 2011… 

What happened next? The World Wide Web gave us a highly intelligent fact based public sphere. Now I’m just playing with you: look around you for a minute… 

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: 

April 19, 1973 – first film to mention global warming released (Soylent Green)

April 19, 1943 – the Warsaw Ghetto uprising began.

April 19, 2002 – Exxon got a top #climate scientist sacked.

Categories
Australia

July 25, 1996 – Australian PM John Howard as fossil-fuel puppet

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, July 25, 1996, then-new Prime Minister John Howard was correctly identified as a muppet. Sorry, puppet.

The Howard Government has refused to endorse Labor’s program to support research into renewable ethanol fuel, drawing sharp criticism from industry and the Australian Democrats.

At a meeting with ethanol industry representatives yesterday, the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Warwick Parer, refused to guarantee continuing commitment to a bounty scheme and a pilot plant which were funded by the former Labor Government to encourage cost-effective production of the alternative fuel.

Martin, C. 1996. Howard a ‘fossil fuel puppet’, Australian Financial Review, 26 July, p. 16.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard has not been Australian Prime Minister long (March of 1996). But it’s pretty obvious that whatever lingering hopes, environmentalists and producers of ”environmentally friendly fuel” ethanol were not going to get much love. And their low expectations were met.

What I think we can learn from this is that a new government whether it has a different ideology or a leader with different priorities can suddenly not be returning the calls of various actors, be they entrepreneurs or social movement organisations or whatever. And windows of opportunity, both for the social and technological innovations can close really rapidly. And of course, everyone knows that, which is why you get such desperation about any given election because opportunities for either necessary research and development or sucking on the public tit, (depending on your perspective) will be curtailed. And so it came to pass in this case. 

What happened next

Howard ruled Australia for 11 years. He did everything he could to squash renewables with some success. Well, certainly delay. 

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.

Categories
Science

July 4, 1996 – article in Nature saying ‘it’s partly us’

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, July 4, 1996, in an issue of Nature, 

“Benjamin Santer, K.E. Taylor, Tom M. Wigley, and ten other researchers published an article that concluded: “The observed spatial patterns of temperature change in the free atmosphere from 1963 to 1987…are similar to those predicted by state-of-the-art climate models… It is likely that this trend is partially due to human activities,…”

Gelbspan, R. (1998) Page 220

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 365ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the IPCC second assessment report was coming out. And the authors of this article, especially Santer, had been attacked on spurious grounds repeatedly, publicly and viciously by demented [see addendum at foot of post] old men who were being funded by cynical fossil fuel interests. These assholes were at base, very well aware of the climate science, which was not really in dispute. 

What we learn again, there are no depths to which these mongrels, these monsters, will not stoop.

What happened next

Santer’s career continued. The science kept getting stronger. The Global Climate Coalition was able to fold in 2002 to having achieved its aims of stopping the US taking any serious climate action. 

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.

Addendum

A commenter has raised an eyebrow over the adjective demented, and they are 100% correct. It was simply wrong to throw a medical term around as an insult. It also medicalises and explains away a political decision. I will try to do better in future. If you, reader(s?) see other examples of dodgy thinking/language, feel free to drop me a line.

Categories
Denial IPCC

May 30, 1996 – Denialist goons smear scientist

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, May 30, 1996, Fred Seitz, energetic and lunatic denialist, tries to smear the IPCC, focussing on one particular scientist, Ben Santer

“This controversial issue also resulted in two letters (dated 30 May and 26 June), being sent to me, one from the Global Climate Coalition (John Schlaes) and the other from The Climate Council (Donald Pearlman). Copies of these were also sent to ten key members of the US Congress as well as the Advisor for Science and Technology and Assistant to the US President (John Gibson), and the Assistant Secretary of State (Eileen Clausen).”

Bolin 2007, page 130

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 365.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Global Climate Coalition was in full beast mode, trying to attack specifically Ben Santer. And as one of the authors of the lead authors of a particular chapter of the IPCC’s second assessment report (which said that there was evidence of a discernible impact of man’s activities on the climate). Almost 30 years later, it’s not really regarded as controversial. But this was the first statement of the IPCC to that effect. And the Global Climate Coalition was wanting to try to stop it or failing that, send a warning to other scientists. Let’s try and chill the debate or slow it down.

What I think we can learn from this

This is an age-honoured tactic, that you shoot messengers and hang the body on a gibbet with a sign that says “This is what happens if you open your big fucking mouth”. It was ever thus. And having it come from multiple sources, and be distributed to lots of people is also standard – makes a lot of noise, kicks up a lot of dust and dirt…

What happened next was that someone at the Wall Street Journal probably got a copy of that letter because a few days later, there was an editorial smearing Santer.

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.

See also –

Excerpt from Oreskes and Conway’s Merchants of Doubt https://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/the-relentless-attack-of-climate-scientist-ben-santer/

Fred Pearce interview with Ben Santer, 2010…

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/09/ipcc-report-author-data-openness

Categories
Denial

 February 2, 1996 – denialist sprays #climate science with his bullshit

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, February 2, 1996, denialist idiot Fred Singer wrote to the journal Science…

“Then Fred Singer launched an attack. In a letter to Science on February 2, 1996, four months before formal release of the Working Group 1 Report, Singer presented a litany of complaints.”

Oreskes and Conway, 2010 Page 205

and

In a letter to Science magazine (February 2, 1996) S. Fred Singer charged that the most recent IPCC assessment “presents selected facts and omits important information.”

Gelbspan, R. (1998)  Page 227

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The denialists – both those who were lying for money and those who were lying to themselves, also for money – were fighting a rearguard action against inconvenient reality. The second Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change synthesis report was being released. It said that there was already a discernible impact from human activities on the climate. This was anathema to the denialists, because it would then lead to pressure for real regulation. 

By now, of course, the Berlin mandate (agreed at COP1 in Berlin in 1995) was underway, meaning that rich nations were being compelled to negotiate an agreement on emissions cuts. 

What I think we can learn from this

In order to avoid outcomes they don’t like, denialists will attack scientists and smear them. This is more widely recognized now.. One form of these attacks is now known as the Serengeti Strategy, a term coined by Michael Mann, a climate scientist who would be attacked from 1998 for his “hockey stick”.

What happened next

The attacks on scientists continued and culminated in 2009, with the theft of emails from the UEA server. The selective release and cherry-picking of the emails were part of a largely successful effort to sow doubt and confusion in the minds of people who might otherwise have mattered, or who may have done things that mattered.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
Australia Economics of mitigation

November 26, 1996 – Australian climate modelling is ridiculed

On this day, November 26, 1996  an Australian politician ripped into the “official” modelling on which Australian governments (BOTH LABOR AND LIBERAL) had relied to say “oh, no, can’t do anything that might reduce the acceleration of our coal mining and coal exporting, or else the sky will fall.”

Leader of the Democrats, Senator Cheryl Kernot stated in the Senate:

“Let us not forget who ABARE is. It is the ideological cousin of the Industry Commission and it never misses an opportunity to slip the boot into environmental or social causes, churning out statistics from its largely discredited macro-economic modelling, showing how much better off we would all be if only we mined more coal, produced more electricity and puffed more carbon dioxide every day. I am willing to bet that if ABARE existed 150 years ago, it would have produced a whopping great spreadsheet proving that the economy could not afford to ban child labour in the coal mines”

(Senate Hansard 26.11.96 p 6014).

On ABARE, see also  “High and Dry” by Guy Pearse and “Scorcher” by Clive Hamilton.

On economic forecasting – I recently learnt the brilliant John Kenneth Galbraith quote – ““The  only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable,”

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 362ppm. At time of writing it was 417ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Australian governments were looking for excuses to do nothing to slow down the acceleration of Australian coal exports. ABARE helped to provide those excuses.

Why this matters. 

The way economic modelling is used to justify all sorts of horror (usually the continued enrichment of the already filthy rich, and/or the galloping desolation of our being-murdered planet), is a) by now very obvious and b) never-ending, despite a).

What happened next?

ABARE and its “MEGABARE” nonsense was thoroughly exposed and discredited(see here). Which did nothing to stop the Howard Government from continuing to use it.