Eighteen years ago, on this day, February 13th, 2006. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Four Corners documentary on “Greenhouse mafia”
You can see a bit of it here
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that a lobbyist, Guy Pearse had written a really interesting PhD thesis. The Millennium drought seemed never-ending, as did Australian Prime Minister John Howard‘s opposition to any climate action unless it was loose and clearly, phoney talk of nuclear as a solution. And so Four Corners, which is a bit like Horizon, was looking to return to an issue that they had covered extensively in the 1990s.
And it latched on to recently published research by Guy Pearse. The program was a crucial weakening of Howard’s legitimacy/hegemony which would be dealt killer blows through the rest of 2006.
What we learn is that academic research can sometimes – if the stars align – make a difference, at least in the agenda-setting phase, possibly, in the implementation phase, who knows?
What happened next
A very good book – “High and Dry” came out the following year, based on (but also extending) Pearse’s PhD. Kevin Rudd became Prime Minister. And you know the rest…
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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that everyone was talking climate because of the recently concluded Copenhagen conference and the general upsurge in concern over the previous three years. Plimer had written a book called “Heaven and Earth” which has become a major denialist tract. Monbiot was always up for a ruck. Monbiot had already put paid to David Bellamy’s appearances by pointing out that Bellamy had completely misunderstood an aspect of glacier retreat.
What I think we can learn from this
That is rare for a single intellectual crushing and humiliation to particularly matter, but cumulatively they can, I guess.
What happened next
Plimer kept plimering. Monbiot kept publishing. Kevin Rudd did not announce the double dissolution election in response to the blockage of his wretched legislation. The Australia climate wars just got worse. And the emissions kept 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..
Forty-three years ago, on this day, October 25, 1980, episode 234 of the Science Show had the following – Letter re Science Show; Flight from Maths; Hepatitis B Vaccine Success; Carbon Dioxide and Climate; Kakadu National Park; Northern Territory Wildlife.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 339ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there were more and more people writing about potential climate change. The Australian Academy of Science had just had its first big conference. And so getting a brief item about (I think this one was about starting to make measurements at Cape Grim)something else was not a big surprise. And, as I’ve said before the very first Science Show, in the middle of 1975, had talked climate with Lord Ritchie Calder.
What I think we can learn from this
Again, that subset of Australian politicians who listen to the Science Show, which is probably a much smaller proportion than the national average, would have known about the problem Long, Long ago.
What happened next
We kept talking about it. Everyone has kept talking about it. In the late 1980s the denial campaigns kicked into gear, once it was clear action was needed, and that oil, coal and gas were in the cross-hairs.
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.
Ten years ago, on this day, September 23, 2013, the Australian state broadcaster explained – for the umpteenth time – the dreadful lies the radio shock jocks were peddling.
On 23 September 2013 the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) program Media Watch explored a textbook example of why too many Australians and their politicians continue to stumble through a fog of confusion and doubt in regard to climate change. The case under the microscope typified irresponsible journalism.
Media Watch host Paul Barry, with trademark irony, announced: ‘Yes it’s official at last … those stupid scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] got it wrong’, in their latest assessment report. He quoted 2GB breakfast jock Chris Smith from a week earlier saying the IPCC had ‘fessed up’ that its computers had drastically overestimated rising temperatures. ‘That’s a relief,’ said Barry, and how do we know this? ‘Because Chris Smith read it on the front page of last Monday’s Australian newspaper. When it comes to rubbishing the dangers of man-made global warming the shock jocks certainly know who they can trust.’
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Australia had been going through a very high pitch culture war on climate policy since 2006, positions had hardened even further and climate denial became “acceptable” (i.e. had lower social and political costs than had been assumed) again from about 2010 onwards. And various so cold shock jocks wallowed in it
What I think we can learn from this is that it is easy to create an echo-chamber of mutually reinforcing bullshit that gets published in newspapers then commentated on, then reported then there is reportage on the commentating of the reportage of the commentating. It is all cheap, it is easy, and it does not need to connect to anything actually scientific.
What happened next
After becoming Prime Minister later in 2013, Tony Abbott proved that he was not a fit leader for the Liberal Party let alone by country. He was turfed by his own party after only narrowly beating an empty chair in a January 2015 vote.
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.
Forty seven years ago, on this day, September 13, 1976, a major US news network did a story on climate change.
“On September 13, 1976, ABC’s Jules Bergman did a two minute 10 second story on a National Academy of Sciences committee report on the damage done by fluorocarbons (from aerosol spray cans) to the ozone layer of the earth’s atmosphere. Like most fluorocarbon/ ozone stories, this one cited the medical dangers of increased skin cancers, but in this case, the committee said that the most dangerous result might be a warming of the earth’s poles.”
Sachsman, 2000 The Role of Mass Media in Shaping Perceptions and Awareness of Environmental Issues
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that journalists were, by 1976. very sensitised to the climate issue. There was the prolonged drought in the United Kingdom. Stephen Schneider had released “the Genesis Strategy,” and had made various appearances on the Johnny Carson Show. So getting the climate issue into a discussion of ozone was not that much of a stretch.
What I think we can learn from this is that decent journalists will give you a tolerably accurate version of the truth. You may need to reframe some of the factoids, but especially if it’s the business press, you will more or less be able to figure what’s going on. For all the good it will do you.
We have known for 50 years that there was serious trouble ahead – longer in fact, but really from the early mid 70s both the theory and the evidence were coming together… And here we are.
What happened next
In 1977 the National Academy of Science released its report. George Brown managed to Shepherd the climate protection act or whatever it was called into law Carter signed this time next year ear and there was a flurry of newspaper articles and presumably television reports about the dangers of continuing to rely on coal and here we are.
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.
Thirty three years ago, on this day, August 6, 1990, a BBC Panorama documentary made it as far as the colonies….
1990 Political climate [videorecording] / reporter Steve Bradshaw ; producer Charles Furneaux Published Sydney : Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 1990#
(In the UK it had been called “The Big Heat” and was broadcast on May 21.1990)
As the cold war ends, world leaders are already beginning to fight the climate war. They have been warned by scientists that global warming, caused by industrialisation and pollution, will cause a dramatic increase in storms, floods and droughts around the world. But there is bitter disagreement over who should pay the cost of preventing such disastrous climatic change. Should the burden fall on the west, with the risk of recession and a fall in living standards, or should Third World countries also foot the bill, even though it may mean hunger and poverty?
As part of One World week, Stephen Bradshaw reports from Britain, America and India on the politics of the climate, and reveals the latest scientific evidence on the future of our weather. Producer Charles Furneaux Editor Mark Thompson
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there was an insatiable appetite, it seemed, for documentaries about climate change. And the ABC showing this BBC input is nothing particularly newsworthy. But this stuff was going on all the time.
What I think we can learn from this is that when an issue is hot, there is a provision of documentaries, think pieces, books, etc. Most end up in obscurity, deserved or otherwise. Or are cited without being read.
What happened next
The moment passed, it always does. It always has until now – now the issue isn’t going away because the consequences are piling 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.
Forty-three years ago, on this day, May 1, 1980, the ABC Nationwide TV programme covered climate change
Item details for: C475, 1942227 “Baseline’ station set up on Cape Grim in north-west Tasmania to monitor levels of carbon dioxide in atmosphere. Wooley refers to the ‘glasshouse effect’, prior to the now established term ‘greenhouse effect’. Permaculture, founded by Bill Mollison, could be counter to greenhouse effect.”
The atmospheric ppm was 341.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that American scientists were making really accurate measures of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and had been for a long time. By 1980, there was more and more international awareness of the climate issue. And so for example, two weeks before the Nationwide programme, the Age newspaper, had run a story about “World ecology is endangered.” [Link to AOY] So it may simply be that when the CSIRO sent out a press release about Cape Grim that the Nationwide producer said, “Hell yeah, there’s a hook for this.” Who knows? Lost in the mysteries, the histories of time.
What I think we can learn from this
Anyone wanting to pay attention knew what might be/was on the horizon. It’s also the case that it is much harder for researchers to figure out what was shown on television than was written in newspapers and magazines, which leave a more searchable digital trace.
What happened next
By August of that year, the Australian Academy of Science held a conference in Canberra about climate change. In 1981, the Office of National Assessments wrote a secret report about the carbon dioxide problem. But Australia continued to be largely asleep. Despite many, many attempts to wake her 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.
Thirteen years ago, on this day, March 10, 2010, Maurice Newman, a neoliberal warrior from the 1970s onwards, gave a climate denial speech to senior ABC staff. Prime Minister John Howard had appointed him as chair in January 2007.
In a speech to senior ABC staff on 10 March 2010 he said climate change was an example of “group-think”. According to an ABC PM account of the speech: “Contrary views had not been tolerated, and those who expressed them had been labelled and mocked. Mr Newman has doubts about climate change himself and says he’s waiting for proof either way.”
(wikipedia Maurice Newman)
and
“The media hasn’t been good at picking these things up and it’s really been the question of what is conventional wisdom and consensus rather than listening perhaps to other points of view that may be sceptical.
“And I brought in as well in that vain what’s been going on in climate change where there’s been clearly a point of view which has been prevailing in the mainstream media, and the fact that again perhaps consensus and conventional wisdom may not always stand us in good stead.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
People like Maurice Newman, long time neoliberal soldier, want to be within the commanding organisations such as universities and media, for obvious reasons. And he did what he (was) set out to do….
What I think we can learn from this
What’s interesting, what we can learn is that these terms like “groupthink” gets thrown around as if there’s some sort of profound statement. And they’re a shortcut for avoiding actually engaging with the fact that the science around the basics of climate change has been settled for a very long time. Unable to combat that. Newman and his ilk resort to name-calling and pseudo profound smears. But it’s quite effective…
What happened next
In an article in The Australian on May 8, 2015, Maurice Newman, chairman of the Prime Minister’s business advisory council, said that the United Nations is behind the global warming hoax. The real agenda of the UN “is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook,” Newman said. “This is not about facts or logic,” he added. “It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.”
The ABC has continued to be a site of struggle, and has been almost entirely hollowed out by the neoliberals and their chums. You can always track individual journalists and stack the board with non entities and lackeys and if they persist in being independent, reduce their funding until they get the message.
See also organisational decay.
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...
Sixteen years ago, on this day, February 5, 2007, Australian Prime Minister John Howard got ridiculed on an ABC television programme.
Howard’s problem was that he had changed his policy but not his political strategy. He refused to genuflect before the icons: Al Gore’s scare, the drought as proof of a climate transformation, and Kyoto sanctification. For the ABC, Howard was now a figure of undisguised ridicule. His Lateline interview of 5 February 2007 began with this mocking question from Tony Jones: ‘Can you recall exactly when it was that you ceased being a climate change sceptic and became, in effect, a true believer?’
(Kelly, 2014:131)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
Australian Prime Minister John Howard had a track record of 10 years of successful opposition to any action on climate, using all means fair and foul. He had finally been pushed because of an impending election into appointing one of his mandarins, in this case, Peter Shergold to examine an emissions trading scheme. Therefore journalists were beginning to have fun with Howard’s U-turn. Howard had to do the U-turn beacuse climate concern was being expertly used as a wedge issue by new opposition leader, Kevin Rudd.
What I think we can learn from this
Journalists who don’t really “get it” can still land blows. But the real problem is that the landing of these blows has an emotional release effect on viewers who think “ah, the system is working, the system is correcting, this bad person who I don’t agree with will be gone soon”. They don’t then think about what they need to do for the long-term. It’s a kind of court jester catharsis thing.
What happened next
Howard was defeated. In the November 2007 election, Kevin Rudd came in with lots of promises, but no real action and poisoned the well, creating cynicism, which is still present.
References
Kelly, P. 2014. Triumph and Demise: The broken promise of a Labor generation. Melbourne University Press.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
