Tag: 1996

Categories
Denial Science Scientists United States of America

March 6,1996 – Michael McCracken testimony about “skeptic” scientists

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 6th, 1996,

“On March 6, 1996, Michael MacCracken submitted prepared testimony to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives. One part of that testimony addressed recurring criticism by the skeptic scientists of IPCC findings that corroborate increased atmospheric warming and attribute that increase to human emissions of greenhouse gases”.

Gelbspan, R. (1998) Page 198

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was  with the coming of the climate issue in 1988, the denial campaigns had cranked into gear. Initially it was attacks on James Hansen, but by 1989 it had spread thanks to outfits like the George C Marshall Institute, which had been set up to shill for Star Wars, the Space Defence Initiative, and outfits like Western Coal Association and the “Information Clearinghouse on the Environment.” Things had really cranked into higher gear in 1994-95 because the  IPCC second assessment report was being produced, and the denialists needed to attack it and cast doubt on it as much as they could.

The specific context was that the Second Assessment report had come out in November of ‘95 and had included the fateful phrase that humans were already exerting a “discernible” influence on the climate. I think the wording had been suggested by Bert Bolin. 

Anyway, here’s one of the good guys, Mike McCracken trying to educate congresspeople about scepticism, science, climate, etc. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the denialist campaigns are partly about rich white men wanting to stay rich. They also provide a platform for superannuated scientists like Nirenberg and Seitz and Singer to feel that they are somehow still relevant when frankly they’re not – or certainly not relevant scientifically, but somehow manage to have an enormously pernicious influence for the future of our species. 

Though, to be fair, even without the denialist campaigns, we would have probably still fumbled the ball. We’ll never know. 

What happened next. The denialist campaigns kept going. Within a year or two, they’d found what they thought was “soft target” in their ongoing “Serengeti Strategy” – Michael Mann, and the caravan went 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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 6, 1992 – #survival emissions versus outright denial 

March 6, 2002 – ABARE cheerleads Bush. Blecch

March 6, 2009 – first “Low Carbon Industrial Strategy” announced 

March 6, 2009 – the UK gets its first “low carbon industrial strategy”

Categories
Australia United States of America

November 22, 1996 – Clinton in Australia, gives climate speech about Great Barrier Reef…

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, November 22nd, 1996, freshly re-elected US President Bill Clinton is in Australia….

“Finally, we must work to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions. These gases released by cars and power plants and burning forests affect our health and our climate. They are literally warming our planet. If they continue unabated, the consequences will be nothing short of devastating for the children here in this audience and their children.

“New weather patterns, lost species, the spread of infectious diseases, damaged economies, rising sea levels: if present trends continue, there is a real risk that sometime in the next century, parts of this very park we are here in today could disappear, submerged by a rising ocean. That is why today, from this remarkable place, I call upon the community of nations to agree to legally binding commitments to fight climate change.”

Remarks on the International Coral Reef Initiative in Port Douglas, Australia | The American Presidency Project

Prime Minister John Howard dissed it of course – see Gordon, M. 1996. “Howard defends stand on emissions.” The Australian, November 25, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm. 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 Clinton had started his first term with promises of climate action, and then had his arse handed to him over the BTU tax.

The specific context was that Clinton had just won re-election, defeating Bob Dole, and knew that there would be fun and games ahead, internationally, because the Kyoto conference was coming up in December 1997. Given the Australian stance at COP2, it was clear there was gonna be Australian resistance and shitfuckery.

What I think we can learn from this – Clinton was not stupid. Corrupt, venal, slimy, yes. Stupid, no.

What happened next – Australia spent 1997 demanding special treatment, and got it, carving out an increase in emissions as its emissions “reductions” target.

Obama made some nice speeches.

http://www.news.com.au/national/18-years-on-us-president-barack-obama-follows-bill-clinton-to-queensland-for-the-same-outcome/news-story/32318f45fbde89461f9e5fba8db343c0   

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: 

November 22, 2000 – protests at COP6 at The Hague

November 22, 2002 – private business battles on #climate become public in Australia

November 22, 2004 – another denialist screed foisted upon the world

Categories
Denial United States of America

August 20, 1996 – Denialist wastes time, energy in stupid smear

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, August 20th, 1996,

Frederick Seitz, in his capacity as president of the George C. Marshall Institute in Washington, DC, assembled the small group of sceptics from among the institute’s leaders and acquired support from some senators in US Congress. They wrote a letter to the two co-chairmen of Working Group I and myself (dated 20 August 1996) and to Tim Wirth at the US State Department, again challenging the outcome of the Madrid meeting. On this occasion the politics of climate change was more in focus. Some of the senators who had signed the letter had attended the second conference of the parties to the Climate Convention in Geneva in July as observers.
The response from the State Department (dated 24 September) was quite detailed and succinct. A short and carefully written review of the relevant scientific conclusions in the IPCC SAR was given (presumably prepared by Bob Watson, the co-chairman of Working Group II and in the USA responsible for the White House for environmental issues.  Wirth rejected the accusations and then sketched the Administration’s view of the US policy that should be aimed for during the next few years.

(Bolin, 2007: 132)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 362ppm. 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 denial campaigns against carbon dioxide had kicked off properly in 1989, George Marshall Institute pivoted from shilling for Star Wars to attacking James Hansen and any other scientist who stuck their head above the parapet.  In this they were joined by the Global Climate Coalition (lobbying policymakers), the Climate Council (gumming up the international negotiations), etc

The specific context was the release of the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) saw the denial and smear campaigns kick into high gear, because the summary for policy makers included the fateful phrase (suggested by Bolin) that human activity had already had a “discernible” impact on the atmosphere. So the denialists picked on someone they perceived to be vulnerable, and tried to smear him. Fortunately, it didn’t work (though they tried the same shit with Michael Mann later).

What I think we can learn from this is that the denial lobby were unprincipled scum (I know, this may come as a shock) who deserve to rot in hell.

What happened next The IPCC kept producing reports. And reports. And reports. And the emissions kept climbing because, really, who the hell listens to 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

Bolin, B. 2007. A History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change: The Role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Also on this day: 

August 20, 1988 – Hansen’s model released – All Our Yesterdays

August 20, 1997 – Australian Mining Industry operative misrepresents the #climate science. Obvs.

August 20, 2016 – Exxon’s gonna get sued? – All Our Yesterdays

August 20, 2018 – Greta Thunberg’s first protest

Categories
Australia

July 22, 1996 – “Gremlins in the Greenhouse”? No.

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, July 22nd, 1996,

Gremlins in the Greenhouse. On 22 July [1996] Dr Murray Rowden-Rich outlined the latest ice-cap research, which suggests that internal ice cap dynamics may be a major factor influencing global climate change.

Source – Tasman Institute 1996 Annual Review

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 362ppm. 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 denialist campaigns in Australia had begun to kick into gear by 1989-1990. It was largely “subcontracted” to so-called “Think tanks” like the IPA and the Tasman Institute, which acted as an attack dog on environmental policy.

The specific context was that although Australian policy elites had decided no on carbon pricing domestically, and the new Liberal National Party government of John Howard was unlikely to backtrack, there was still the spectre of international entanglements (the Berlin Mandate etc). And also, just laying down suppressing fire, in the form of ongoing doubt-seeding and confusion-boosting.

What I think we can learn from this is that outfits like the Tasman Institute come and go (gone by 1997, as surplus to requirements), but the ideology behind them goes on, of course. 

What happened next – the denial campaigns kicked into higher gear in 2000, with the fear that a Labor government might end up ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. They kicked into even higher gear in 2006-7, when carbon pricing looked likely.

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: 

July 22, 1966 – “The Conservation Society” holds launch event

July 22, 1968 – Gordon Macdonald tries to warn about carbon dioxide build-up…

July 22, 1991 – two #climate idiots on the Science Show

Categories
Swtizerland UNFCCC

July 18, 1996 – Geneva Ministerial Declaration noted but not adopted

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, July 18th, 1996,

COP 2, Geneva, Ministerial Declaration was noted (but not adopted) July 18, 1996, COP 2 took place in July 1996 in Geneva, Switzerland. Its Ministerial Declaration was noted (but not adopted) July 18, 1996, and reflected a U.S. position statement presented by Timothy Wirth, former Under Secretary for Global Affairs for the U.S. State Department at that meeting, which:

1. Accepted the scientific findings on climate change proffered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its second assessment (1995);

2. Rejected uniform “harmonized policies” in favor of flexibility;

3. Called for “legally binding mid-term targets”.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm. 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 negotiations for a climate treaty, which got underway officially in early 1991, were hampered from the start by US intransigence on any strong action (yes, the Republicans were ideological about this, but there was also the industrial interests, for example the Global Climate Coalition).

The specific context was that at the COP1 meeting in Berlin, the rich nations had agreed to turn up at the third meeting (some point in 1997) with plans for actual cuts. This was causing all sorts of mayhem….

What I think we can learn from this is that it’s easy-ish to make promises. But the closer you get to having to deliver on them, the more awkward and angry everyone gets….

What happened next – the Kyoto meeting led to an utterly inadequate set of promises, which didn’t even get enacted because the US and then Australia pulled out. The Kyoto Protocol finally became law in 2005 when Russia joined, as part of a quid pro quo for World Trade Organisation membership….

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: 

July 18, 1979 – US Senators ask for synthetic fuel implications for greenhouse warming. Told.

July 18, 2005 – inconvenient energy targets scrapped

July 18, 2012: Climate Justice poem – “Tell Them” by Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner – hits the internet

Categories
Australia Health

July 14, 1996 – Australian Medical Association and Greenpeace

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, July 14th, 1996 in the midst of the second COP meeting, in Geneva the Australian Medical Association and Greenpeace combine to issue a report

Tens of millions of additional deaths a year are predicted worldwide early next century from heat waves, starvation and epidemics of infectious diseases, in a landmark report on the health impact of climate change from the greenhouse effect.

The findings increase pressure on the Howard Government to soften its pro-industry stand against action to protect the world’s climate at this week’s climate summit in Geneva.

The new report, by the World Health Organisation (WHO), the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment Program, concluded that immediate action to combat global climate change was warranted.

In an unprecedented alliance, the Australian Medical Association (AMA) and Greenpeace jointly launched the report in Sydney yesterday, soon after its release in Geneva. Both groups called on the Howard Government to step up actions to reduce emissions of harmful greenhouse gases.

Gilchrist, G. (1996) Act Now Or Risk Health Of Millions: Study Sydney Morning Herald July 15, p.5

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm. 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 COP2 was crucial, and the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network were helping the Howard government push back against the promises made in Berlin the previous year – that the rich nations would turn up in 1997’s climate conference with actual commitments to reduce emissions. 

The specific context was that Greenpeace had been trying to find allies in the climate fight – be it re-insurers, medics, whatever. They knew what was at stake. 

What I think we can learn from this is that outfits like Greenpeace did the right thing – trying to build alliances, explain what was at stake. Meanwhile, the wreckers were building coalitions of their own. More vicious, better funded. Guess who won?

What happened next. The emissions kept climbing. By the third decade of the 21st century, the consequences were being felt. Many nastier consequences to come….

Greenpeace and the AMA held a conference in 1996

See book – – Climate change and human health in the Asia-Pacific Region / edited by Peter Curson, Charles Guest, Erwin Jackson.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/24537948

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: 

July 14, 2000 – Miners versus the ALP/ and climate action

July 14, 2011 – “Four Degrees or More: Australia in a Hot World” conference closes

Categories
Australia

July 8, 1996 – National Greenhouse Advisory Panel tells the truth…

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, July 9th, 1996,

FUEL and power subsidies, poor planning and political inaction have slowed Australia’s drive to cut its greenhouse emissions, a government advisory panel has warned.

The National Greenhouse Advisory Panel, representing industry, conservation, science and community sectors, has advised the Federal and State governments to consider imposing firm targets for greenhouse reductions in the manufacturing, agriculture, transport and household sectors.

It has urged governments to start planning for the effects of higher temperatures and rising sea levels caused by global warming next century.

NGAP’s chairman, Professor Paul Greenfield of the University of Queensland, yesterday said the panel’s two-year review of Australia’s official greenhouse policy had identified “shortfalls”. “There needs to be a bit of revitalisation in the response,” he told The Australian, on the eve of United Nations negotiations in Geneva for a new climate change treaty.

Bita, N. 1996. Subsidies slow greenhouse drive. The Australian, 9 July, p.2.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm.  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 international negotiations around climate change had been a problem for Australia’s political elites from the get go. The first major promise (full of caveats) had been made in 1990, just ahead of the second World Climate Conference. Then, in the 1994-5 a carbon tax campaign got as far as it did because the Australians needed SOMETHING in their hands at COP1 in Berlin.  Now, with the expectation that rich countries would sign on to emissions reductions at the Kyoto Conference in 1997, the pressure was on again.

The specific context was that the NGAP had been set up in 1994, just as the carbon tax campaign was gearing up.  It had held meetings, produced reports – you know the drill…

What I think we can learn from this – you should always be SUPER skeptical about important sounding advisory panels/committees etc, full of the Great And the Good – they’re often a stabvest for business as usual elites and a sandpit for well-meaning liberals to play in.

What happened next – the NGAP was killed off by Howard, without so much as a thank you to the participants. An “Australian Greenhouse Office” – more funding, but same dynamic, “replaced” it.

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: 

July 8, 1962 – New York Times  on ‘Glasshouse Effect”

July 8, 1970 – Environmental Protection Agency formed 

July 8, 1991 – UK Prime Minister chides US on #climate change

Categories
Denial United States of America

June 25, 1996 – Wall Street Journal pretends to be a newspaper

Twenty nine  years ago, on this day, June 25th, 1996 the Wall Street Journal pretended to be a newspaper. 

“Santer immediately drafted a letter to the [Wall Street] Journal, which forty of the other IPCC lead authors signed. Santer explained what had happened, how he had been instructed by Houghton to make the changes, and why the changes were late in coming. At first the Journal wouldn’t publish it. After three tries, Santer finally got a call from the Journal’s letters editor and the letter was finally published on June 25. Santer’s reply had been heavily edited, and the names of the forty other cosigners deleted.

Oreskes and Conway, 2010 Page 208

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the second Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report had said that there was already a discernible impact of human activity on the earth’s climate (It’s hard to remember now, but this was a Big Deal back then). The denialist attack dogs were predictably out for blood, and they had latched onto what they perceived to be a vulnerable scientist, Ben Santer.

What I think we can learn from this:  Assholes like the Global Climate Coalition and the so-called “George Marshall Institute” goons were amplified by “newspapers” like the Wall Street Journal, who were happy to publish hatchet jobs and then refuse significant right of reply.

What happened next  The denialists found a new object of hate – Michael E. Mann.  And the caravan kept rolling on.  The emissions climbed, the concentrations climbed, the consequences climbed. 

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: 

June 25, 2002, 2003 and 2008 – CCS’s first hype cycle builds – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

June 12, 1996 – scumbag denialists smear a scientist

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, June 12th, 1996, scumbag denialists attacked a climate scientist.

1996 editorial-page attack on Ben Santer in the Wall Street Journal

Frederick Seitz, in a Wall Street Journal complained that alterations made to Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC report were made to “deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming.” Similar charges were made by the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a consortium of industry interests; specifically, they accused Santer of “scientific cleansing.”[6]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 365ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the attacks on scientists who do “impact science” (as it was dubbed by Alan Schnaiberg in the 1970s) have been going on for a long time. Check out Henrik Ibsen’s “An Enemy of the People”. See also the attacks on those who raised concerns about ozone in the 1970s. From the late 1980s outfits like the George C Marshall Institute and the Global Climate Coalition were honing their skills in smearing any scientist who was warning of trouble ahead.

The specific context was that the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report had come out and included the conclusion that there was already a discernible impact on the climate of human activity. This drove the denialist fools and liars into a frenzy of hate and wrath. They picked on someone they perceived to be vulnerable (what Michael Mann would later dub ‘the Serengeti Strategy’).

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings – watch out for old white men (and others, obvs) who no longer have the social power/cachet that they used to have. They are butt-hurt and will act out.  Especially if they’re paid to do so by powerful material interests.

As “active citizens” – name the tactics – name the smearing, the “Serengeti Strategy”.

Academics might like to ponder – their complicities.

What happened next  Santer survived, has had a great career. The denialists no longer deny, they focus on lies about the cost and reliability of renewables as opposed to fossil fuels.  They deserve to be ignored and/or sent to the Hague.

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.

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 12, 1992 – Australia refuses to put a tax on carbon: “It’s a question of who starts the ball rolling. We won’t.”

June 12, 2011 – Nazi smears used by denialists, obvs

Categories
Australia Business Responses Carbon Pricing

June 3, 1996 – Business Council of Australia versus even the idea of a carbon tax

On this day June 3, 1996, 29 years ago, the peak business body in the settler colony known as Australia wanted to nail yet another nail in the coffin of the carbon tax proposal that had been defeated in February 1995.

THE Business Council of Australia has asked the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics to update research conducted last year on the regional impact…

Strickland, K. 1996  Call for revision of carbon tax’s impact. The Australian, June 3, p.031

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm.  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 for this was that business was busy winning all the big policy battles, but still feared that climate action might impact their profits. Internationally, the Berlin COP had ended with a “Berlin Mandate” meaning rich nations (including Australia) were going to be expected to present plans for carbon dioxide reductions by the third COP.

The specific context was the new Liberal National Party government of John Howard was even more business-friendly and climate-action-blocking than that of the ALP’s Paul Keating. But you never know, issues can come back – especially with COP2 about to take place in Geneva – and the Business Council is here just laying down some suppressing fire.

What I think we can learn is this: 

As human beings – business interests do not care about the actual future.

As “active citizens – business interests know how to keep governments on a leash, and they rarely get sloppy/complacent.

Academics might want to ponder – their role as handmaidens to this system.

What happened next: Howard came out swinging hard against both international and national commitments. He did not get punished by the Great Australian Electorate for these acts of bastardy until 2007.

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

Stuff on ABARE

Stuff on John Howard

(use the search function!)

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 3, 1970 – US Senator suggests World Ecology Unit – All Our Yesterdays

June 3, 1989 – Liberal Party to outflank Labor on #climate?!

June 3, 1994 – Greenpeace warns of climate time bomb

June 3, 2010 – Merchants of Doubt published