Tag: 1996

Categories
Australia Denial UNFCCC

July 15,  1996 – Geneva games

Thirty years ago, on this day, July  11st, 1996,

The Australian Democrats have publicly undermined the Howard Government’s strategy at the historic climate change summit in Geneva by urging the meeting’s president to ignore whatever arguments Australia’s delegation puts forward.

This is an extraordinary break with diplomatic convention, under which domestic political disputes are left behind at international meetings.

The Democrats’ leader, Senator Kernot, and deputy leader, Senator Meg Lees, last night faxed a three-page letter to the summit president, Mr Chen Chimutengwende, asking him not to be “fooled by the Government’s slick-talking attempt to avoid its responsibilities to all other governments concerned with the impact of climate change”.

Gilchrist, G. (1996) Kernot Breaks Ranks On Climate Sydney Morning Herald, July 16 page 2

And

On July 15, 1996, at an international negotiating conference in Geneva, Patrick Michaels released an article, title “New Data Cast Doubt on Human Fingerprint,” that criticised the Nature article [of Santer et al]

Gelbspan, R. (1998) Page 22.

And

On July 15, 1996, at an international negotiating conference in Geneva, Patrick Michaels released an article, title “New Data Cast Doubt on Human Fingerprint,” that criticised the Nature article [of Santer et al]

Gelbspan, R. (1998) Page 22

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 362ppm. As of 2026, 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 after an initial bout of helpfulness/proactive behaviour (1988-1989), the Australian government had moved towards petulance on the path to obstruction under late-Hawke and Keating (Prime Ministers).

The specific context was in March 1996 Liberal John Howard had become Prime Minister. He was adamantly opposed to all climate action.  The 2nd COP would be his first big test. On his lights, he ‘passed it’.  For the planet? Not so much.

What I think we can learn from this is that it is not too late to get John Howard to the Hague for crimes against humanity.

What happened next – the next COP, Kyoto, would end in “success”.  Many more “successes” like that followed.  The carbon dioxide kept accumulating. 

xxx

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

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

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

July 11, 1996 – Celebrity Death Match: Australian fossil fuels industry versus The World (Spoiler: world lost)

July 12, 1996 – medics slam energy companies for outright denial and obstruction

July 14, 1996 – Australian Medical Association and Greenpeace

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

References

xx

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: 

July 15, 1968 – first(?) UK government attention to the possibility of climate change 

July 15, 1972 – Soviet Weekly on how man affects the weather… 

July 15, 1977 – “Heavy Use of Coal May Bring Adverse Shift in Climate” 

July 15, 1988 – “Racing on Capitol Hill for Title of “Mr Greenhouse” 

July 15, 1991 – RIP Roger Revelle 

July 15, 1994 – ALP and BCA in good cop bad cop routine 

July 15, 2005 – The “Stern Review” into #climate is announced…

Categories
Australia UNFCCC

 July 8, 1996 – Australian business whining about climate change of course

Thirty years ago, on this day, July  8th, 1996,

“Australian industry will argue this week that proposed greenhouse measures will slow growth in the global economy, with Australia among the countries that would be hardest hit by a fall in trade.”

“When green and gold don’t mix.” The Australian Financial Review, 8 July 1996,  

Of course they will.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 362ppm. As of 2026, 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

Australian business’s initial response to the greenhouse effect surge of awareness/concern in 1988 was to wait for it to blow over. When it hadn’t by 1989, they started pushing back, and by 1990 were pushing back hard both in public and especially in private.

They (especially the miners) had fought hard to defeat a carbon tax proposal in 1994-5, and were happy enough with the voluntary scheme (the “Greenhouse Challenge”) that replaced it. But still cautious and worried that their ability to make mega profits would be impaired.

The specific context was that John Howard had become Prime Minister after the March 1996 election, and took Keating’s indifferent hostility to green issues and dialed it up to eleven. The first major test was the second COP (we are now, of course, up to 31), at which Australia was under pressure to be less shit.

What I think we can learn from this – business is always going to squeal about the sky falling. That’s their favourite tactic – zap the wire that leads to people’s amygdala –  because it always works.

What happened next  

The COP process went on (and on, and on). The Greenhouse Challenge was a joke. Emissions went up. Howard successfully slowed the growth of renewables.  The window of opportunity to do anything meaningful closed.  We defenestrated ourselves, basically. 

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

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

References

xx

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: 

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

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

Categories
Denial United States of America

April 22,  1996 – Denial on Earth Day  

Thirty years ago, on this day, April 22nd, 1996,

A more organised opposition to the IPCC’s conclusions began in the USA on Earth Day (22 April 1996), with a message distributed widely, including to every member of the US Congress, and with the first issue of the State of the Climate Report attached in which the IPCC conclusions were challenged. However, just as this report was about to be published, the Union of Concerned Scientists denounced it in a press release, based on earlier contributions to the media debate about global warming by the man in charge, Patrick Michaels: “The forthcoming climate change report sponsored by Western Fuels Association is like a lung cancer study funded by the tobacco industry.”

(Bolin, 2007) Page 128

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 that the denialists had won major battles in 1989 to 1992 by convincing George Bush to play hardball and to threaten to boycott the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change the Rio treaty, if targets and timetables were included in the treaty text.

Then denialists had also defeated Bill Clinton’s BTU tax in 1993.

The denialists were also gearing up for a battle royale over the upcoming Kyoto conference, and here we see them sending a message on Earth Day to all congresspeople as part of the day-to-day routine of blitzing politicians with talking points, which will be picked up and used by friends and allies and will be a reminder to those who were not their friends and allies that they the bad guys still exist and can make trouble.   

The specific context was that the Kyoto battles were just beginning…

What I think we can learn from this is that evil never sleeps, never takes a step back unless forced to.

What happened next: Evil has kept on winning. Oh well.

Also on this day: 

April 22, 1965 – Manchester Evening News article on C02 and global warming – All Our Yesterdays

April 22, 1975 – UK Civil Service scratches its head on #climate

April 22, 1993 – Clinton’s announcement used by anti-carbon pricing Aussies

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