Tag: Graeme Pearman

Categories
Australia

February 26, 1988 – Australian climate scientist Graeme Pearman warns of “Dramatic Warming”

Thirty-six years ago, on this day, February 26th, 1988, four months before James Hansen gave his dramatic and pivotal testimony in Washington DC, an Australian climate scientist, Graeme Pearman, was speaking out on the same topic.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/101979010

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was the “Elizabeth and Frederick White Research Conference on Global Change at the Australian Academy of Science in Canberra, against the backdrop of increasing global awareness and the “Greenhouse Project” initiated by the Commission for the Future and the CSIRO.  Pearman been studying climate change for 17 years by this time with CSIRO trying to alert people. And over the last 10 years, there had been a dramatic warming; this was captured also later that year. In March in a conference about the Gaia hypothesis held in San Diego. 

What we learn is that we’ve known – and we’ve chosen to ignore scientists and keep voting for the people who ignore scientists. Oh, and by the way, both mainstream political parties ignore the scientists. 

What happened next? A few months later, climate change properly exploded onto public consciousness, stayed there until about 1990-91 when the Gulf War took over. dislodging Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. And then it didn’t really come back until 2006, with The Inconvenient Truth etc.

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 Graeme Pearman in January 1992 on the gamble.

Also on this day: 

Feb 26, 1981 – Science writer warns readers about the greenhouse in the Guardian….

 Feb 26, 1998 – Australian “clean coal” is on the way (again).

February 26, 2014 – Advanced Propaganda for Morons

Categories
Australia

January 19,1992 – they gambled, we lost

Thirty two years ago, on this day, January 19th, 1992,

“One of the CSIRO’s top scientists says doubters of the greenhouse effect are gambling with the future of the world. Dr Graeme Pearman, coordinator of the CSIRO’s climate change research program, said yesterday there was little doubt global warming was a reality according to all the best scientific models.”

Anon, 1992. Greenhouse cynics gambling with future. Canberra Times, January 20

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the denialist campaigns in Australia, helped by imported American scientists, had been successful. And the Hawke and then Keating governments had significantly softened their stance, their already weak appetite for economic measures, such as a carbon tax. Pearman, who had been studying the climate issue for 20 years by this stage, knew what was at stake and was publicly pushing back. 

What we can learn from this is that scientists have been correctly predicting that the gamble was going on and correctly predicting that there might be losers in that gamble. 

What happened next is that a carbon tax came back onto the agenda in 1994-95. It was again defeated, then tax became ETS in the late 90s. Everyone was talking about it. And then finally Tony Abbott killed it off. More broadly Pearman has been very public about the struggles back then.

And we are toast. 

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: 

January 19, 1968 – Engineers are not ecologists…

January 19, 1976 – The carbon consequences of cement get an early discussion.

January 19, 2015 -Four utilities pull out of an EU CCS programme…

Categories
Australia

September 17, 1987 – report on “The Greenhouse Project” launch

Thirty six years ago, on this day, September 17, 1987, a novel effort between the CSIRO Atmospheric Physics people and the Australian government’s Commission for the Future was reported on (the launch happened on the 16th). Known as “The Greenhouse Project”

The greenhouse effect is not just another disaster story but a real phenomenon that is likely to have far-reaching economic and social impacts within considerably less than a human lifetime, according to a CSIRO scientist.

Dr Graeme Pearman was speaking at a press conference launching the Greenhouse Project, a national campaign organised jointly by the Commission for the Future and the CSIRO to alert Australians and Australian industry to the possible consequences of the effect.

A rapid build-up of “greenhouse gases” could cause sea levels to rise by up to one metre in the next 40 years and global temperatures to rise by up to 4 degrees Celsius.

A one-metre rise in sea level would put the main street of Cairns underwater and result in the disappearance of large areas of beaches around the coast, Dr Pearman warned.

Anon (1987) Launch of Greenhouse Effect plan. Sydney Morning Herald, September 17

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly pp348.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.

 

The context was that CSIRO 1986 realised that climate change was going to be a real problem. This was after 5 years of silence pretty much among the Australian Environment council folks. Science Minister Barry Jones had managed to create a foresight organisation called “The Commission for the Future,” and the greenhouse project was its first effort and very successful one at that.

What I think we can learn from this is that scientists and policymakers were aware of the climate problem and trying to do something about it before the 1988 breakthrough. And the momentum was ultimately lost because the issues are complex, and because business fought back (but everyone knew that business would fight back.)

What happened next – the Greenhouse Project gave us a scientific meeting in December 1987 but then also Greenhouse 88 – a satellite linked up conference in the capital cities of Australia that have passed into a kind of folklore.

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.

Categories
Scientists

September 13, 1992/1994- Scientists traduced, ignored

On this day, September 13 1992, Roger Revelle’s daughter wrote an op-ed  about the way her father, ailing, had been exploited by climate denialists. (see also Oreskes and Conway 2010, page 195)

Contrary to George Will’s “Al Gore’s Green Guilt” {op-ed, Sept. 3} Roger Revelle – our father and the “father” of the greenhouse effect – remained deeply concerned about global warming until his death in July 1991. That same year he wrote: “The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.” Will and other critics of Sen. Al Gore have seized these words to suggest that Revelle, who was also Gore’s professor and mentor, renounced his belief in global warming.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

http://uscentrist.org/platform/positions/environment/context-environment/john_coleman/carolyn-revelle-what-my-father-really-said

On this day the PPM was 353.01 Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Exactly two years after this was published, Australian climate scientist Graeme Pearman was trying to educate ALP politicians about the facts of life (on earth)

It’s quite possible that the turning point in the debate over one of the key environmental issues facing the Keating Government came on an early spring afternoon in the Cabinet room when the Minister for the Environment, Senator John Faulkner, wasn’t even there.

Over 90 minutes on September 13, a world renowned atmospheric scientist [Dr Graeme Pearman] gave a rare briefing to Cabinet ministers on the extent of the great environmental dilemma of our age – the greenhouse gas phenomenon.

McLean, L. 1994. D Day in Gas debate. The Australian, December 5, p. 20.

On this day the PPM was 355.86 Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

“Every disaster movie starts with a scientist being ignored.”

And when scientists tell the truth, they must either be traduced or ignored.

What happened next?

Pearman finally retired in 2004. He has tried to educate folks. Australian political (and economic) leaders largely just did not want to know. And here we are.

Categories
Australia

August 10, 1980 – “Energy, Climate and the Future” seminar in Melbourne

On this day, August 10, 1980, the Australian And New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science held a seminar with the ominous title “Energy, Climate and the Future.”

The wonderful Alan Pears takes up the story (from an interview conducted in 2015)

 I was on the Victorian organising committee for a scientific seminar on climate research, which included presenters like Graeme Pearman, Barrie Pittock and a range of those people. And at it my question to them was ‘why aren’t you out on the streets telling everyone about this?’ 

And what did they say?

And Graeme Pearman’s response, which was a very measured one was ‘Well, look, we’ll know for certain by the turn of the century. And at the moment we can’t say for certain. ‘ But certainly the laws of physics did apply in [then], just as they apply now

On this day, atmospheric carbon dioxide was 3367.67 ppm. Now it is 420ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

People have been studying this for a very long time.

What happened next?

There was a symposium in Canberra, a monograph published. Once Barry Jones became Science Minister and was able to create the “Commission for the Future” – which created “The Greenhouse Project”, it started to move forward. But that wasn’t till 1987…

Categories
Australia

July 21, 1991 – “Greenhouse Action for the 90s” conference leads to “The Melbourne Declaration”

On this day, July 21, 1991, a three-day international conference “Greenhouse Action for the Nineties”, co-hosted by UNEP, The Climate Institute (the US version) and the short-livedNGO “Greenhouse Action Australia” began in Melbourne. At the end of it, a declaration. It gives you a sense of the earnestness and the technological primitivism (by today’s standards) that this

“was approved at the final plenary… constructed by a consensus process, using computer projection of wordings drafted in workshops conducted throughout the conference.”

The declaration called on

  • Australian governments at all levels to accelerate the development of programmes to convert interim planning targets into action, with priority funding for implementation;
  • local government authorities to participate more actively in the global climate debate and develop sustainable cities and living areas;
  • industries to seize opportunities afforded in the development of new and environmentally sound technologies to meet the global climate challenge; and
  • individuals to take personal responsibility for life-style changes that would lead to climate stabilisation and ecological sustainability.

Specifically on energy, there was this –

The context is that, around the world – and especially in Australia (thanks to the ground-laying work of Barry Jones (Hawke’s Science Minister 1983-1990), the Commission for the Future and the CSIRO Atmospheric Research Division (Graeme Pearman, Barrie Pittock and others) – people were taking “the greenhouse effect” seriously. Greenhouse Action Australia was part of that –

People thought something could and would be done about the problem. They saw it was, unless dealt with, going to lead to horror. They started groups, they held conferences, they made declarations….

Looking back, it’s “obvious” that they underestimated

a) the difficulty of keeping an issue (and groups) “live” and vibrant.

b) the sheer ferocity and skill of the industry-led pushback and the way that it would lead to a “culture war.”

That wasn’t their fault, on the whole. The reason we are in this godawful mess is not the fault of the people who tried (though they could have tried harder, smarter – but you can always say that). The fault – and the indictments at the Hague – though we had best hurry on that score – lay elsewhere.

Why this matters.

We need to (try to) learn from past mistakes (but remember that Hegel jibe too).

What happened next

The “greenhouse effect” became old news (pushed out by the first Western military action against Iraq, and by the sense that an international treaty, signed in Rio in 1992, had ‘solved’ the problem.

But the industry figures knew it would come back, as an issue, and they made sure they were ready. By then, most of the groups that had sprung up – like Greenhouse Action Australia – had died, so the industry figures had a much easier time spreading their lies. And with the 1996 arrival of the Howard government, it got easier still. The rest is “history”…

Categories
Australia Ignored Warnings Industry Associations

January 20 (1992) Gambling on climate… and losing #auspol

On this day 30 years ago…, well, let me speculate. Imagine a middle-aged Australian businessman. Let’s call him Dave (“Dave-o” to his mates). Two kids, chasing his third tawdry affair with his fourth secretary, trying to dodge a second heart attack. Doctor telling him to cut back on the booze and the smoking.

Dave is sitting at the lunchtime talk of the CEDA in Australia, and he’s listening to the keynote speaker Don Carruthers of mining giant CRA (now Rio Tinto) say that the federal Government’s stance for the Rio Earth Summit in June – lead by that silly woman minister Ros Kelly – is going to threaten the Australian economy. And Dave’s next pay rise.

Here’s what the Australian newspaper reported the following day

Stewart, C. 1992. Green policies ‘flawed’. The Australian, January 21, p.3. 

“The Federal Government’s environmental proposals for the United Nations inaugural earth summit conference in Brazil in June are seriously flawed and run counter to our own economic interests, the Committee for Economic Development of Australia heard yesterday. Mr Don Carruthers, a director and group executive of mining giant CRA Ltd, told a CEDA lunch in Melbourne that the Australian stance in the lead-up to the Rio de Janeiro conference – which will be the world’s largest environment forum – would, if adopted, pose a direct threat to the international competitiveness of our economy.”

Let’s imagine, Dave is sat there, hearing Don Carruthers fulminate, and he remembers that before coming to the event he had, uncharacteristically, idly leafed through the Canberra Times (one of the more serious newspapers in Australia).

On page three, he had seen the following. 

Anon, 1992. Greenhouse cynics gambling with future. Canberra Times, 20 January. 

“One of the CSIRO’s top scientists says doubters of the greenhouse effect are gambling with the future of the world. Dr Graeme Pearman, coordinator of the CSIRO’s climate change research program, said yesterday there was little doubt global warming was a reality according to all the best scientific models.”

I wonder how Dave reconciled these two items. Does he decide that he’s 45 or 50 in a position of authority, but not necessarily power and there’s no margin in rocking the boat? That it might not be happening, anyway. Is he gonna think about being able to retire and leave the problem  – if it exists – for his teenage children, who’ve been on the demonstrations have encouraged him to join Greenpeace and buy recycled toilet paper, to deal with?

Which way does Dave-o jump? Any given individual might jump one way or the other. They might struggle (see Christopher Wright and Daniel Nyberg’s book about Australian middle-managers at a later date). 

But ultimately, as a species, as a society, as a political class, we know which way Australia jumped – towards ever more fossil fuel exports, and disdaining the domestic possibilities of renewables until the late 2000s.

As a species, it turns out that we lost Pearman’s gamble. What would you say to those people, to Dave, if you could have them here now for five minutes?