Tag: 1996

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.