Tag: James Hansen

Categories
Australia

March 27, 2008 – James Hansen writes a letter to Kevin Rudd

Sixteen years ago, on this day, March 27th, 2008, climate scientist James Hansen tried to get through to new Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080401_DearPrimeMinisterRudd.pdf

Probably as much impact as Monckton’s Jan 3 2010 letter!!

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Hansen was pretty desperate by this stage – getting arrested, calling coal power plants death machines. And he was writing to Kevin Rudd because Rudd was newly elected Prime Minister making a song and dance about climate change. And in the process of producing various green papers and so forth about an emissions trading scheme he would introduce, and so Hansen was trying to stiffen Rudd’s spine which, and I say this is no disrespect to James Hansen, who is an intellectual and moral giant was, in fact, a fool’s errand. 

What we learn is that scientists can science all they like, and they can train politicians, be of use to politicians, but politicians are going to politician. And yes, you have to dance with the one that brung you. But oh my goodness, dancing with two left feet and dancing with fears in your eyes…

What happened next? Hansen’s intervention had no discernible impact on Rudd. There was a green paper, a shaky white paper, shitty legislation that was defeated once and then twice. Then Rudd refused to call a “double dissolution” election. And Rudd then tested the loyalty of Julia Gillard one time too often. And that’s all she wrote, except, of course, Rudd clawed and knifed his way  back to the prime ministership… And oh my God, what an ungodly mess it was. Meanwhile, the emissions continued, and the atmospheric concentrations increased. 

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: 

March 27, 1966 – The “Conservation Society” to be launched

March 27th, 1977- what we can learn from Dutch arrogance and aviation disasters

Categories
Scientists United States of America

 December 15, 2005 – James Hansen versus Bush again…

Eighteen years ago, on this day, December 15, 2005, it was – Hansen versus Whitehouse again… 

“NOW BACK TO the Keeling talk and its repercussions. There was no press release or press conference about the talk, but the American Geophysical Union meeting attracts a substantial number of reporters. BBC radio did an impromptu interview with me as I left the speaker’s platform. Bill Blakemore used a quote from my talk in an ABC News story the next day. The New York Times and the Washington Post, in articles about international climate negotiations, made note of my comment that 2005 was likely to be at least as warm as 1998, the previous warmest year in the period of instrumental data. The International Herald Tribune extracted several paragraphs from my talk, verbatim, making a short article under my byline.

Unbeknownst to me, this modest level of publicity was causing growing concern in the Office of Public Affairs at NASA headquarters. And the next week, on December 15, this festering consternation of NASA officials exploded into what the agency’s public affairs employees described as a “shitstorm.” The immediate cause of the explosion was the statement on ABC’s Good Morning America program that “NASA is announcing that this year, 2005, is tied for the hottest year ever.” ABC did not mention my name, but indeed I had provided our analysis of global temperature for the meteorological year (December through November) to Bill Blakemore the previous day….

Also, J. T. Jezierski, Griffin’s deputy chief of staff and White House liaison, told Bowen that on December 15 he had received an angry call from the White House and added that “the ‘sustained media presence … of Dr. Hansen’ was the dominant issue all that day and the next for every top official in public affairs and communications at the agency—himself, chief of staff Paul Morrell, strategic communications director Joe Davis, and David Mould—and that these officials also held discussions with Michael Griffin during those two days.” – 

James Hansen, Storms of my Grandchildren

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 380ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Bush administration was trying to gag the troublesome priest James Hansen. Of course this was a rerun of what had happened in 1989 when Al Gore found out about the previous attempt, it had led to the Bush administration having to concede that yes it would enter into climate negotiations.

What I think we can learn from this is that rather than deal with physical reality, powerful actors will try to shoot the messenger or silence him.

What happened next is that Hansen retired and continued to be a troublesome priest.

Meanwhile the carbon dioxide kept accumulating.

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
Science United States of America

October 25, 2000 – James Hansen writes a letter

Twenty three years ago, on this day, October 28, 2000, famed climate scientist James Hansen wrote an open letter…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369,4ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that James Hansen had not yet retired from NASA – hadn’t yet been pushed out by the Bush administration’s attempts to shut him up. He knew that the IPCC report was coming out. And he decided to do some truth telling. And here we are.

What he says is

What I think we can learn from this

The problem is not the science, the problem is not the scientists. The problem is the power structures. This is nothing that radicals have been telling us that for a very long time, but the people who want to “save the world” never quite get their shit together. Here we are. 

What happened next

Hansen started getting nicked on demos, bless him.

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
Science Scientists United States of America

June 23, 1988 – it’s time to stop waffling and say the greenhouse effect is here

Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen gave his pivotal testimony to senators.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that since the 1985 Villach meeting advocates of climate action had been pressing every button and pulling every lever that they knew. Hansen had testified before and this testimony timed to sensitise journalists before the Toronto “Changing the Global Atmosphere” conference was held on a very hot day in Washington DC with the windows closed and the air conditioning turned off.

What I think we can learn from this

You have to say the same thing over and over and over again to get anywhere. You have to be lucky with your timing. And crucially James Hanson was a small c-conservative person at that point, so coming from him it was a big deal to say that the greenhouse effect was here. Those words would not have had the same effect from some other people…

What happened next

 The issue exploded. Presidential candidates were forced to address it. Hansen got smeared and ignored and uninvited to important meetings. This continued until he retired. He’s been getting arrested a lot.

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
Activism Energy

February 17, 2013 – celebrities arrested at Whitehouse, protesting Keystone XL

Ten years ago, on this day, February 17, 2013 , a protest march and arrests took place in Washington DC

Following Nebraska’s approval of the route for Phase IV of the Keystone XL Pipeline in January, about 50,000 people gathered at the Washington Monument and marched to the White House. Demonstrators demanded President Obama block the Keystone XL Pipeline and take action against climate change. Four-dozen protestors, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Darryl Hannah, James Hansen, Sierra Club Founder Adam Werbach, and environmental activist Bill McKibben, were arrested at the gates of the White House for civil disobedience.

http://www.mensjournal.com/travel/events/a-brief-history-of-climate-change-protests-in-the-u-s-20140919#ixzz3J9UWAobP  

And

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/17/keystone-xl-pipeline-protest-dc

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Keystone was getting built.

What I think we can learn from this

It takes a hella lotta effort to even slow down the acceleration of the infrastructural madness.

What happened next

As per wikipedia– 

“In 2015 KXL was temporarily delayed by President Barack Obama. On January 24, 2017, President Donald Trump took action intended to permit the pipeline’s completion. On January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to revoke the permit that was granted to TC Energy Corporation for the Keystone XL Pipeline (Phase 4). On June 9, 2021, TC Energy abandoned plans for the Keystone XL Pipeline.”

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

References and see also

Bradshaw, E.A. Blockadia Rising: Rowdy Greens, Direct Action and the Keystone XL Pipeline. Critical Criminology 23, 433–448 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-015-9289-0

Categories
Ignored Warnings

August 22, 1981 – New York Times front page story costs #climate scientists their jobs.

On this day, August 22, 1981 the New York Times had a front page story about climate change. Written by its legendary science writer Walter Sullivan, it began

STUDY FINDS WARMING TREND THAT COULD RAISE SEA LEVELS

A team of Federal scientists says it has detected an overall warming trend in the earth’s atmosphere extending back to the year 1880. They regard this as evidence of the validity of the ”greenhouse” effect, in which increasing amounts of carbon dioxide cause steady temperature increases.

The seven atmospheric scientists predict a global warming of ”almost unprecedented magnitude” in the next century. It might even be sufficient to melt and dislodge the ice cover of West Antarctica, they say, eventually leading to a worldwide rise of 15 to 20 feet in the sea level. In that case, they say, it would ”flood 25 percent of Louisiana and Florida, 10 percent of New Jersey and many other lowlands throughout the world” within a century or less.

It was based on a study by James Hansen. Hansen’s unit was punished by having Department of Energy funding pulled – 5 people lose their jobs  (See Bowen Censoring Science page 212)

[The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 338.48 ppm. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.]

Why this matters. 

Scientists getting punished for reporting the facts. Always a good look, eh? Never ever sends a chilling message.

What happened next?

Hansen and others kept going. That’s what good scientists do. By 1985, they realised shit was about to get real.

Categories
United States of America

June 2, 1989 – “James Hansen versus the World” – good article on actual #climate consensus let down by title

On this day, June 2nd, 1989 a good article with a bad title was published, summarising then current stances on “the greenhouse threat”.

Hansen, via his testimony almost a year previously, had become one target for those who were seeking to dismiss long-standing ‘greenhouse’ concerns.

Hansen had already been on the receiving end of an attempt to silence him by the Bush Administrations OMB, which had been revealed in May by Senator Al Gore.  Hansen had been on the receiving end of this sort of pressure in 1981, and it would continue throughout the rest of his career. That is what happens when you have some inconvenient truths to tell…

Why this matters. 

We need to remember that titles are rarely chosen by the author, and that just as you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, an article might be more than what is suggested or (oftentimes) less – the so-called ‘bait and switch’.

What happened next?

Hansen kept doing what a decent scientist should do – researching, reporting on their findings, refusing to be shut up.

Categories
Science Scientists

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

On this day, May 24 2007 James Hansen’s paper  “Scientific Reticence and Sea Level Rise” was published.

Hansen made the basic point that – ah, hell, here’s the abstract –

I suggest that a ‘scientific reticence’ is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for calling together a panel of scientific leaders to hear evidence and issue a prompt plain-written report on current understanding of the sea level change issue.

Why this matters. 

Despite what the lunatic climate deniers will tell you, scientists are generally very very cautious, unwilling to extrapolate beyond their datasets. They are human, make mistakes, come to false conclusions, sure.  But on the whole “science” is pretty damned hot.  And it if there is a bias, it is towards reticence – that’s before we even talk about the chilling effect of smear campaigns etc etc.

What happened next?

Hansen has kept on trucking. A mensch [on second thought, does someone have a better word that isn’t so gendered?]

Categories
International processes United States of America

May 12, 1989 – USA says it will, after all, support the idea of a #climate treaty

On this day, May 12th 1989, the Bush Administration of the United States finally reversed its position of opposition to a climate treaty (“too soon, let’s do more research” that sort of thing).

Now it said it would that it would support negotiation of a framework convention on climate change.

Why the end to the foot-dragging? It may have had something to do with the embarrassment of being caught red-handed trying to silence climate scientist James Hansen (something they’d keep trying to do).

See Los Angeles Times article here.

WASHINGTON — 

The White House, in an apparent softening of its position on a major environmental problem, has dropped its opposition to a formal treaty-negotiating process on global warming, it was learned Thursday.

Until now, the United States had been alone among major Western economic powers in opposing such an initiative.

The change of position was outlined in a cable dispatched Thursday to U.S. delegates at an environmental conference in Geneva sponsored by the United Nations.

Saying it was essential for the United States to exercise a leadership role, the cable said, “We should seek to develop full international consensus on necessary steps to prepare for a formal treaty-negotiating process.”

Why this matters

They have to be dragged every millimetre. Stop dragging and they pull back. That’s how it has always been.

What happened next

The US administration – doing what its oil and auto-industry wanted – blocked and delayed, delayed and blocked the start of the negotiations, the negotiations themselves and ever since. And here we are.

Categories
United States of America

April 9, 2019- brutal book review “a script for a West Wing episode about climate change, only with less repartee.”

On this day, on the 9th of April 2019,, a scathing review of the planning of Rich’s “Losing Earth” was published. The review, which you can read here, included this priceless observation

“Other than Sununu’s vindictiveness and human shortsightedness, we have very little sense of the forces arrayed against Hansen and Pomerance. The inattention to the fossil-fuel industry is most glaring, but Rich also fails to address the consolidation of business interests more broadly against efforts to decarbonize. Nor do we get a glimpse of the movements that might have responded otherwise—say, those outside DC organizing against Reaganomics. So reading Losing Earth often feels like reading a script for a West Wing episode about climate change, only with less repartee.”

FWIW IMO. Nathaniel Rich has told an interesting human scale story of a few individuals in the second crucial decade, the 1980s. But the reviewer is largely correct in what they’ve said. 

Why this matters. 

Mustn’t get bogged down in the he said/she said, the minutiae. Gotta see the big picture, but it can be tricky, especially when you’ve dug up fascinating factoids.