Tag: 2004

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

December 9, 2004 – “Real Climate” hits the web, bless it.

Twenty years ago, on this day, December 9th, 2004, Real Climate is launched..

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that denial of climate change and spurious science to back it up was still a major thing. And this was before social media, before it was very easy for scientists to explain what they were doing, how they were doing it, why they were doing it, and so forth. Real Climate was a real boon to a lot of people who wanted to keep up with what was going on, and to refute the latest denialist talking points.

What we learn is that good scientists have been willing to spend precious time explaining the facts and the theories and the observations and where the facts, theories and observations might not necessarily mesh. And this has, perhaps over time, reduced the confusion. in some people’s minds, maybe. Of course, the simple fact is that a lot of people are choosing not to understand, because if they did understand, it would be pretty bad for their egos and their worldviews. Ignorance is bliss. Alethophobia is a thing. 

What happened next Real Climate still going 20 years later. It’s a solid performance and a solid achievement. 

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: 

December 9, 1974 – UK Department of Energy launches “energy efficiency” programme

December 9, 1998 – Canberra bullshit about environment

Categories
Australia Denial

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

Twenty years ago, on this day, November 22nd, 2004 another terrible book is published, saying that carbon dioxide build-up is not a problem.

Most scientists say that global warming is not only real, but is already contributing to extreme droughts, floods and the melting of the  polar ice caps.  But a few scientists still insist the idea is bunk. With the Kyoto Protocol about to come into force, Melissa Fyfe investigates the doubters, their financial backers and whether they are worth listening to.

At 401 Collins Street on Monday night, 50 men gathered in a room of plush green carpet, pottery and antique lights to launch a book about the science of climate change. Some of them were scientists. But many were engineers and retired captains of industry. Presiding was Hugh Morgan, president of the Business Council of Australia and former Western Mining boss. The master of ceremonies was retired Labor politician Peter Walsh.

Climate change is about science, but not just about science. It’s about business and politics and wielding influence. The men – there was just one woman present – were all climate change sceptics, members of an organisation called the Lavoisier Group that argues global warming is nothing to worry about.

The book they launched – the latest weapon in the tussle for hearts and minds over global warming – was by Melbourne climate change sceptic William Kininmonth, former head of the National Climate Centre, part of the Bureau of Meteorology. He argues that global warming is natural and not caused by humans burning fossil fuels.

The book, Climate Change: A Natural Hazard, blasts the models used by climate scientists to predict and simulate what is happening. They are flawed, he says. “Climate change is naturally variable and it poses serious hazards for human kind,” he writes. Focusing on man-made global warming is “self-delusion on a grand scale”.

The only problem for the sceptics is that the vast majority of scientists think they are the ones that are deluded. “There’s a better scientific consensus on this than on any issue I know – except maybe Newton’s second law of dynamics”, Dr James Baker, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the US, has said.

Fyfe, M. 2004. The global warming sceptics. The Age, 27 November.ge Tool

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that although the denialists had their favoured Prime Minister who was making most of their favourite moves, there’s always time for another unreadable steaming pile of denialism.. In order to get yourself some headlines, go on a speaking tour, feel like you’re telling the truth to the ignorant savages and just generally pal around with your nut job friends. And so it came to pass.

What we learn is to paraphrase Taylor Swift “denialists gonna denialist.” It is, after all, the democracy, at least until the Atlas Network goons get their way.

What happened next. In 2007, the Lavoisier Group kicked into higher gear because everyone was concerned about climate change or was having to pretend that they were concerned about climate change. 

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

Categories
Australia

November 15, 2004 – Bob Carr on Lateline- “no other developed country will be as severely affected by global warming as Australia.”

Twenty years ago, on this day, November 15th, 2004, New South Wales Premier Bob Carr responded to a CSIRO report with some astute observations about what was coming… (back when the ABC still had a backbone and a Lateline).

Australian Broadcasting Corporation TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT

Broadcast: 15/11/2004

TONY JONES: And for anyone who tuned in a bit late, we should point out Mike Bailey’s potential weather outlook was for November 15 in the year 2030.

Well, to discuss the issues raised in that report we spoke to the NSW Premier, Bob Carr, earlier today.

Bob Carr, thanks for joining us.

Clive Hamilton from the Australian Institute said today that no other developed country will be as severely affected by global warming as Australia.

Do you agree with him?

BOB CARR, NSW PREMIER: I do. I think of all nations, Bangladesh, or some of the small island states would only be worse affected but we stand, for example, to have even more erratic rainfall.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of November 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Millennium Drought was ongoing. The Liberal government of John Howard Government was showing itself to be utterly hostile to any action on climate change. And in fact, was at this point, heavily boosting coal and natural gas exports and for domestic use. Bob Carr was still premier of New South Wales and had done what he could to get carbon offsetting and carbon trading going in his own state, and also to get the other states on board for a bottom up emissions trading scheme. 

What we learn is that these issues were being discussed and debated by top people, in the right places 20 years ago, or longer. 

What happened next? Bob Carr stopped being premier at about that time shortly after, and later became Julia Gillard’s Foreign Affairs Minister. The emissions kept climbing of course, as did the atmospheric concentrations. 

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 15, 1958 – Academic Paper on “Changes in Carbon Dioxide Content of Atmosphere and Sea Due to Fossil Fuel Combustion” submitted

November 15, 1983 – “Energy Futures and Carbon Dioxide” report…

Categories
Academia Media

November 1, 2004 – Brilliant “Balance as Bias” article published

Twenty years ago, on this day, November 1st, 2004 two academics write a crucial article about how the media works and is worked by denialists…

Journalistic Balance as Global Warming Bias

And the academic article is here

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 423.7ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the denialists had been able to get lots of their bullshit published in mainstream outlets, not on the basis of, you know, peer reviewed science or anything credible, but simply by using (or abusing if you want) the idea that the media has to show “both sides.” This is aside from the fact of who owns the media and what their long-term interests or short term interests are. And here we have a paper which lays that out by Boykoff and Boykoff. A good paper, you should read it. Unfortunately, it’s still largely relevant. And if you’re like me, he went through the naughties and teens writing to the BBC complaining about all the space given to nutjob denialists and getting the form response about BBCs responsibility for impartiality and giving both sides of an argument and then you would write back and say you don’t give Holocaust deniers equal billing. And then they wouldn’t reply to that. At least some of these people must have known better, but consider themselves blameless. Everyone is blameless. So it’s someone else’s fault.

What I think we can learn from this is that “our” systems of thought and truthiness have been successfully hacked.

What happened next: The denialists kept using the argument around impartiality and then complaining about censorship, etc. Some media outlets banned denialist comments from under the line. But on the whole, they didn’t. And the thing about climate change is it enrages so many people. And part of the reason it enrages is that humans are not on top. And another part for a lot of them is that they kind of by now know that they backed the wrong horse. And they hate the fact that the hippies were right and that they were wrong.

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/see also

Constantine Boussalis∗ and Travis G. Coan 2013 ‘Balance as Bias’ Revisited: Harnessing the Power of Text-Mining to Understand Media Coverage of Climate Change. March 30, 2013

McAllister et al. 2021. Balance as bias, resolute on the retreat? Updates & analyses of newspaper coverage in the United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia and Canada over the past 15 years. Environmental Research Letters, Volume 16, Number 9 DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/ac14eb


Also on this day: 

November 1988 – Australian Mining Journal says C02 is a Good Thing

November 1, 1959 – M1 motorway section opened

November 1, 1974 – UK civil servants writing to each other on “Climatology”

November 1, 1989 – Senior Australian politician talks on “Industry and Environment”

November 1, 1989 – “Greenhouse Action Australia” launches…

November 1, 1975 – Stephen Schneider tries to clear up the “Carbon Dioxide Climate Confusion.”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

September 18, 2004 – Australian States back ETS plan

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 18th, 2004, the Melbourne Age had the following report on page 3

The Victorian Government and other states are close to finalising a plan for a groundbreaking greenhouse gas emissions trading system to curb pollution caused by industry.

Flagging a major Government focus on the environment, renewable energy and sustainability over the next five years, Premier Steve Bracks said Victoria would take a leadership role in pushing the model.

While the plan is yet to be finalised, it is likely that it would cap companies’ greenhouse gases. If companies exceeded their cap, they would have to buy credits from other companies….

Gray, D. 2004. States Push Emissions Trading Plan. The Age, 18 September, p. 3

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that after the defeat of a straightforward Carbon Tax in 1995, attention had turned to various emissions trading schemes, which had the added benefit of helping banks get rich. And economists could argue about which particular iteration was the most “efficient”, all the while ignoring the fact that these systems will be gamed. There’ll be loopholes, there will be grandfathering clauses, etc. Anyway, there have been two efforts to get the federal Emissions Trading Scheme and Prime Minister John Howard had successfully defeated two proposals for an emissions trading scheme. In 2000, Nick Minchin had been his point man, and then 2003 he had done it literally all by himself. So it was fairly obvious that if you wanted an emissions trading scheme, you’re gonna have to do it so-called “bottom up” with each state, coming up with its own, but then there being transferability and interoperability. And one of the champions for this was Bob Carr, who was still the New South Wales premier (had been since 1995). And here, they were saying that they were going to make it happen. [I don’t know why they didn’t. Did the Federales step in and tell them to go up themselves? That would be a good question to try and answer.] 

What we learn is that good ideas and semi-good ideas and wretched ideas are hard to kill off. Especially if they go with the grain of neoliberalism and are going to make some people very rich.

What happened next. The states’ scheme came to nothing. Kevin Rudd, as Labor Opposition Leader, started talking up an ETS, forcing Howard to do the same. Then the horrors of 2008 to 2012…

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: 

September 18, 2013 – Greenpeace try to occupy the “Arctic Sunrise.”

September 18, 2013 – Feeble denialists launch feeble denialist “report”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 21, 2004 – The Australian reports on Howard cabinet split over ETS

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 21st, 2004, a newspaper tells the tale… (I know this because the ALP’s Anthony Albanese was using the article to attack Prime Minister John Howard in March 2005.)

Albanese speech in parliament 9 March 2005

“Even Treasurer Peter Costello and the former environment minister, David Kemp, supported a national trading scheme. As reported by the Australian on 21 August 2004:

Federal cabinet rejected such a scheme— an emissions trading scheme in 2003— … even though Environment Minister David Kemp and Treasurer Peter Costello promoted it, after industry lobbied John Howard

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard had polished off the emissions trading scheme for the second time, even though his Cabinet had been united against him. He’d hit a pause button, gone and talked to his business mates, came back and said “nah.”

And here we were a year later. I think in the run up to the 2004. Federal election (which happened in October. Mark Latham. Remember him?). A good old fashioned scoop that the Australian ran, presumably because they knew that if they didn’t, it would get given to someone else. It also made them look like journalists, which is always difficult when you’re The Australian. [Interesting question would be who leaked it and why? I don’t know that they ever necessarily got to the bottom of that. But it would be fun to find out.]

What we learn is that when somebody would leak something, you’d have to ask, what were they trying to achieve? What’s the timing? And have they protected themselves enough? Sarah Tisdall and all that.

What happened next, Howard won the 2004 election. Latham went way off the deep end. And Howard got another three years of being a complete fuck knuckle on climate.

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: 

August 21, 1961 – The UN holds a “new sources of energy” conference.

August 21, 1972 – Nature editor John Maddox says C02-temperature fear “found wanting”

Categories
Agriculture Australia

August 4, 2004 – Australian farmers nervous about climate change. Ignored

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 4th, 2004,

THE greatest risk facing farmers is climate change and global warming, National Farmers Federation president Peter Corish has warned.

Calling for a national blueprint on the long-term problems facing the bush, Mr Corish said the NFF had changed its position in the past 12 months and was now convinced of the threat of global warming.

“Twelve or 18 months ago, we would have said very strongly the jury is still out on climate change because we believed there had been a lack of research into assessment of how real climate change is and how far it is likely to go,” he told the National Press Club in Canberra yesterday.

Karvelas, P. 2004. Farmers chief warns on climate. The Australian, 5 August, p.5.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was a drought going on. Australian farmers are always worrying about the weather, because the weather in the land is quite marginal a lot of the time. And of course, at this point, climate change had been an issue of public debate for 15 years. The broader context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard was doing everything in his power to avoid taking any substantive action on climate change, either domestically or internationally. And he was banging on about coal. The other context is that the National Farmers Association or whatever it’s called, had basically been captured and silenced. And you can read about it in Guy Pearse’s wonderful PhD thesis that was published two years later 2006 where he talks about the different sectoral trade associations, whether it’s agriculture, insurance, banking, tourism, whatever, as the missing inactions. 

What happened next. The Millennium Drought broke in 2008/9. The farmers are still screwed by climate change because one-off events are temporary anomalies, like droughts, pulse disturbances in the system. The thing you really have to watch for are the press disturbances, like the CO2 build-up…

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: 

August 4, 1988 – Hawke Cabinet asks for “what can we do?” report on climate.

August 4, 2008 – Police pepper spray #climate campers

Categories
anti-reflexivity Denial United Kingdom

July 9, 2004 – David Bellamy jumps the shark on climate change.

Twenty years ago, on this day, July 9th, 2004, popular conservationist David Bellamy made a complete fool of himself.

David Bellamy – Whatever the experts say about the howling gales, thunder and lightning we’ve had over the past two days, of one thing we can be certain. Someone, somewhere – and there is every chance it will be a politician or an environmentalist – will blame the weather on global warming. (Daily Mail, 9 July 2004) 

Gavin et al.: Climate change, flooding and the media in Britain Public Understand. Sci. 20(3) (2011) 422–438

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that David Bellamy was suffering a certain amount of Relevance Deprivation Syndrome. His star had waned since the 1980s. And along with a lot of other curmudgeonly old white men, he couldn’t bring himself to see that because fossil fuels have given us such power they’re also deadly. One of the ironies is that Bellamy pops up in a 1984 documentary called “What to do about CO2?”, directed by Russell Porter. And a mere 90 seconds into that, he gives a concise and compelling summary of… the greenhouse effect.

What we learn is that just because someone’s on television, banging on about nature doesn’t actually mean they’re capable of seeing the really Big Picture. They, like everyone else, have their blind spots, because they’re human. 

What happened next? Shortly after (in April 2005) Bellamy made a tragic miscalculation about ice glacier melt. George Monbiot, eviscerated him and basically ended his career, something he was bitter about, till he died. 

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 9, 1962 – rainbow bomb parties as hydrogen bomb explodes

July 9, 1965 – “Spaceship Earth” is launched, trying to get us to see our fragility (didn’t work)

July 9, 1987 – “Unpleasant surprises in the greenhouse” warns Broecker

 July 9, 2008 – President Bush operating at his peak intellectual capacity

Categories
United Nations

June 24, 2004 – UN Global Compact Summit in New York, launches ESG in “Who Cares Wins” report

Twenty years ago today, on June 24, 2004, the whole “ESG” caravan got its wheels…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that climate change was not going away. In 2000 the Global Compact had been set up (blue-washing, much?). The Climate Group had launched, there were various UN initiatives going on…

What we learn is that this “ESG” stuff goes back 20 years.

What happened next. ESG becomes a cottage industry. Then a huge factory. And the emissions – you have to ask? – they keep climbing.

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 24 1985 – Climate change rears its head at a development meeting…

June 24, 1986 – New Yorkers get to watch a documentary on “The Climate Crisis”

June 24, 2009 – Scottish Parliament passes insufficient climate legislation; claims ‘leadership’ anyway

Categories
Cultural responses

May 24, 2004 – “The Day After Tomorrow” released

Twenty years ago, on this day, May 24th, 2004, a retread disaster film (with climate change substituted for nuclear war) hit the screens, launched in New York.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Hollywood does love a good Disaster Movie. Especially if it can save on script by substituting some CGI and basically recycling a nuclear war survivalist thing. And that’s what the Day After Tomorrow really is with an amusingly cast guy who’s a lookalike for then vice president (or actual president). Dick Cheney. Dennis Quaid as the sexy scientist hero, it might be fun to watch it again actually. There’s also the Statue of Liberty thing which is a call back to plan as of the eighth we do like a good catastrophe, don’t we? Netflix and chiliastic…

What we learn is that there are a finite number of narratives and we just like recycling them and repurposing them. That’s not so bad. You know, Shakespeare did it. No one goes to Shakespeare for originality of plot. It’s all in the execution. A bit like policy. It’s all about the implementation. 

What happened next? Activists tried to use the film as a rallying or recruiting point without much success. That’s not how Hollywood films work really. Or activism for that matter. The film did not trouble the Academy Awards particularly. But it was never designed to. It was designed to make money and it did make money.

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: 

May 24, 2000- Australian denialist nutjobs have nutjob jamboree

May 24, 2007 – James Hansen ponders whether scientists can be too cautious and quiet (or, indeed “reticent”)