Twenty seven years ago, on this day, July 4, 1996, in an issue of Nature,
“Benjamin Santer, K.E. Taylor, Tom M. Wigley, and ten other researchers published an article that concluded: “The observed spatial patterns of temperature change in the free atmosphere from 1963 to 1987…are similar to those predicted by state-of-the-art climate models… It is likely that this trend is partially due to human activities,…”
Gelbspan, R. (1998) Page 220
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 365ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the IPCC second assessment report was coming out. And the authors of this article, especially Santer, had been attacked on spurious grounds repeatedly, publicly and viciously by demented [see addendum at foot of post] old men who were being funded by cynical fossil fuel interests. These assholes were at base, very well aware of the climate science, which was not really in dispute.
What we learn again, there are no depths to which these mongrels, these monsters, will not stoop.
What happened next
Santer’s career continued. The science kept getting stronger. The Global Climate Coalition was able to fold in 2002 to having achieved its aims of stopping the US taking any serious climate action.
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.
Addendum
A commenter has raised an eyebrow over the adjective demented, and they are 100% correct. It was simply wrong to throw a medical term around as an insult. It also medicalises and explains away a political decision. I will try to do better in future. If you, reader(s?) see other examples of dodgy thinking/language, feel free to drop me a line.