The climate is nearing tipping points. Changes are beginning to appear and there is a potential for explosive changes, effects that would be irreversible, if we do not rapidly slow fossil-fuel emissions over the next few decades. As Arctic sea ice melts, the darker ocean absorbs more sunlight and speeds melting. As the tundra melts, methane, a strong greenhouse gas, is released, causing more warming. As species are exterminated by shifting climate zones, ecosystems can collapse, destroying more species.
Hansen, J. 2009. Coal-fired power stations are death factories. Close them. Guardian, 15 February.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that we have known since the fifties that putting enormous quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere was going to have consequences. We didn’t know how big, how soon, but by the late 1970s, that was becoming clear…
The specific context was that the UK government was busy bullshitting about allowing the building of new “carbon-capture-ready” coal-fired power stations. For fuck’s sake.
What I think we can learn from this is that scientists can tell the truth all they like. The truth, on its own, will not – in fact – set you free, no matter what St John wants you to believe.
What happened next: Hansen kept writing and sciencing. The politicians kept ignoring him and thousands of other scientists. So did, for the most part, the publics of the Western democracies.
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.
“On February 10, 2006, the Friday of the week that George Deutsch resigned, Jim spoke at a conference on politics and science, sponsored by the New School for Social Research in Manhattan. (He was added at the last minute on account of his recent notoriety.) IN a talk derived from the Keeling talk, which was now about two months old, he decided to add a brief discussion of tropical storms, because the topic was “especially relevant to this conference.”
See these two pages from Mark Bowen’s Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming.
2006 Hansen at conference on science and politics at New School for Social Research (Bowen Censoring Science page 143)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that Hansen had been abused, ignored, sidelined in 1989 by the George HW Bush administration, and had basically gone back to the lab (that’s no criticism of the man, btw).
The specific context was that by 2006 the climate issue was heating up again – the Kyoto Protocol had been ratified (thanks, Russia) – so the international negotiations were “back on”, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme was underway, and Al Gore’s film was about to come out. Last summer (2005) Hurricane Katrina had hit New Orleans, with thousands dead.
What I think we can learn from this is that the Bush regime was full of assholes.
What happened next: Hansen started getting arrested at protests about coal plants and pipelines, and has kept on with the science.
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.
On this day 43 years ago, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (created 1848) held its annual meeting, this time in Washington DC. The climatologists held panels within that.
They were pretty blunt about what was on the way.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was the AAAS had been around for a long long time. By the late 1960s its annual gatherings were a site for scientific discussion of what was coming (see here and here).
The specific context was by the late 1970s the climate scientists were beginning to get sure of the eventual result of tipping huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (though they varied on time frames). AAAS was involved.
Efforts to get policymakers interested had had some success, but it all fell in a heap after the Reagan Administration came in in January 1981.
What I think we can learn from this is that we have known for a long time. This. Was. Not. A. State. Secret.
[LINK]
What happened next. The climate stuff at the AAAS meeting was covered in newspapers around the US, sometimes featuring quite prominently. The scientific work continued. And continued.
1988 was the pivotal year. [LINK]
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.
On this day 20 years ago, climate scientist James Hansen, being censored and bullied left right and centre by Bush administration appointees, breaks a sixteen year silence with the media and says yes to a request to appear on the CBS show Sixty Minutes.
Jim spent the morning of the first interview, January 5, 2006, in his apartment, completing his email about ethics to Einaudi and Leshin. He remembers feeling nervous as he walked the few blocks to his office for the filming. “I wondered if I shouldn’t just talk about the science, but then I decided, ‘To hell with this. This has got to be illegal.’ I would be blunt and not hold anything back.”
Source – Bowen Censoring Science p. 55
and
“As a government scientist, James Hansen is taking a risk. He says there are things the White House doesn’t want you to hear but he’s going to say them anyway. Hansen is arguably the world’s leading researcher on global warming. He’s the head of NASA’s top institute studying the climate. This imminent scientist says that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science. Scott Pelley reports.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that governments, at the behest of the powerful interests that either control them or “influence them significantly” (depends on the facts, and also the perspective of the commentator!), have always silenced inconvenient voices – “who will rid me of this troublesome priest” etc etc.
The specific context was that James Hansen had first felt the ire of a Republican administration in 1981 when the front page story on the New York Times in August resulted in already-issued grant funding being pulled from GISS. Hansen kickstarted climate concern with his June 23 1988 testimony to Congress. He found himself mysteriously not invited to various important policy meetings in the following years, and his testimony to Congress subtly altered/suppressed. By 2006 the Bush Jnr administration was fighting a rear-guard action, since the Kyoto PRotocol had finally been ratified by enough nations the previous year to become “law” (well, lore, really), and negotiations for a successor were underway. The censorship and harassment of Hansen, laid out in Bowen’s book, was part of that.
What I think we can learn from this is that the powerful like to stay powerful, and suppress voices that are telling stark truths, as best they can.
What happened next Hansen retired, and started getting arrested.
Hansen is still working as a scientist and the stuff he is saying is frankly terrifying. I am glad I am closer to the grave than the cradle, because there are some shitstorms on their way.
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
Bowen, M. 2008. Censoring Science: Inside The Political Attack On Dr. James Hansen And The Truth Of Global Warming.
Fifteen years ago, on this day, December 22nd, 2010,
“What we see happening with new record temperatures, both warm and cold, is in good agreement with what we predicted in the 1980s when I testified to Congress about the expected effect of global warming. I used coloured dice then to emphasize that global warming would cause the climate dice to be ‘loaded’—for risk of more extreme weather.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that Hansen has been banging on about carbon dioxide build-up for 50 years. His first foray into the world beyond science on this was in 1981. McKibben wrote a series of essays for the New Yorker that was then published as a book “The End of Nature”
The specific context was – that the UNFCCC conference in Copenhagen had been a farce, and it was clear things were gonna get out of hand.
What I think we can learn from this – being smart and right isn’t enough.
What happened next – Hansen and McKibben have gone on being smart and right.
The emissions have kept climbing. Who knows, maybe solar will reduce our energy emissions markedly. Who knows…
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.
“On 6 December 2005, in a presentation to the American Geophysical Union (AGU), James Hansen stated that, “we are on the precipice of climate system tipping points beyond which there is no redemption” (Hansen, 2005, p. 8). Hansen’s warning helped initiate a tipping point trend in climate change communication that was quickly reflected in public debate. These warnings were front page news by January 2006, with The Washington Post reporting that, “[t]his ‘tipping point’ scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad…” (Eilperin, 2006, p. A01).”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that James Hansen had been getting in trouble with asshole Republican administrations since 1981, when a front page story on the New York Times had led to a research grant already given being withdrawn and people losing their jobs. The George HW Bush administration had also tried to sideline/silence Hansen in the key period 1989-1992. And on and on it went.
The specific context was HW’s dumb son, “Dubya” was nominally President, but you gotta assume a lot of the direction was coming from Dick Cheney. By this time the US was having to contend with the fact that the UN process, which it thought it had rendered pointless by withdrawing from Kyoto negotiations, was “back on track” (it’s all relative) and there would be more fights to come about this.
What I think we can learn from this – Hansen is worth listening to. It’s scary af.
What happened next – Hansen took (enforced) retirement. GISS got slaughtered in 2025. The emissions kept climbing, and the Republicans stopped pretending to be anything other than devastation-bots.
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 eight years ago, on this day, November 9th, 1987,
Senate hearings sponsored by Tim Wirth In November 1987 Colorado senator Tim Wirth had sponsored a hearing on climate in which Hansen had testified, but it had been widely ignored by the nation’s media establishment. Oreskes and Conway, 2010 Page 184 [Took place on November 9th, 1987]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 349ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that from the mid-1960s there had been Senators (Democrat but also Republican) who took an interest in carbon dioxide build-up.
The specific context was that the October 1985 scientific meeting in Villach, Austria, had – in some countries (esp US and Australia) lent some urgency and power to scientists efforts to get politicians to push harder.
What I think we can learn from this – it can take ages for a problem to become an issue.
What happened next – the following year more hearings with Hansen took place, but this time during a heatwave and with an international conference about to take place in Toronto. That straw broke the camel’s back.
Wirth was Clinton’s climate emissary, and had some entertaining things to say about Australia’s stance in the run up to 1997’s Kyoto COP.
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.
For years there have been doomsday predictions that burning of fossil fuels might bring about a climatic catastrophe. According to the most alarming theories, fossil fuels release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere where it acts as a greenhouse, blocking the escape of heat into space and thus warming the Earth’s surface. The ice caps could melt, sea levels could rise, agriculture could be disrupted and vast coastal areas might be inundated.
The chief weakness in such theories has been lack of evidence that the greenhouse effect is actually occurring. Though carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing, temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere have been falling over the last 30 years. But now seven scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration claim to have found evidence that, on a global basis, carbon dioxide has already been warming the Earth for a century. They predict it will produce ”unprecedented” warming in the next century.
Their study finds that the warming predicted by various computer models of the greenhouse effect is consistent with worldwide temperature readings since 1880 – and with observations from Venus and Mars. That gave them confidence that the effect is real and that the models can predict it. Other scientists will challenge their assumptions, methods and conclusions. Some actually believe that the greenhouse effect would be beneficial to world agriculture. Conclusive observations may not be available for decades. But it is significant that a respected team of scientists has now joined the group warning of possible catastrophe.
What, if anything, should be done? The nation seems to be turning to the worst possible fuels in terms of carbon dioxide. It is depending less on solar and nuclear power, which emit no carbon dioxide at all. And among the fossil fuels, it is shifting from natural gas and oil, which emit little carbon dioxide, to coal and synthetic fuels, which emit much more.
The greenhouse effect is still too uncertain to warrant total alteration of energy policy. But this latest study offers fair warning; that such a change may yet be required is no longer unimaginable.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 340ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that the New York Times, and other papers, had been reporting on carbon dioxide build-up, quite intermittently, since the 1950s.
The specific context was that the Reagan administration was busy attacking science. The New York Times’ science correspondent, Walter Sullivan, had talked to James Hansen, which ended up costing some funding. See this 2007 interview with Hansenhttps://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/hansen.html.
Why do you think that your testimony in particular was sensitive in the [Reagan] administration, so much so that OMB would want to shade what you were saying?
Well, I think the reason it was sensitive was the fact that it got attention. In 1981 the paper that we wrote in Science — that predicted that the world would be getting warmer over the 1980s and that by the year 2000 you begin to see loss of sea ice and eventually you have opening of the fabled Northwest Passage — that article was reported on the front page of The New York Times by Walter Sullivan. As a result, we lost our funding from the Department of Energy, because, in that administration, they simply did not want that sort of attention to this problem, because it has big implications for fossil fuel industry.
What I think we can learn from this is that we knew enough and we didn’t act. We can stick that on our tombstone.
What happened next – it would be 1988 before politicians would have to start to pretend to give a damn.
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.
Twenty four years ago, on this day, March 19th, 2001,
Spencer Abraham announcing new power plants each year etc.
“On the other side, Energy Secretary Abraham had stated in a public speech on March 19 that the United States must add ninety new power plants each year, mostly coal-fired, for the next twenty years to meet the need for a 45 percent increase in electricity demand by 2020. Vice President Cheney strongly supported efforts to increase fossil fuel supplies, including the opening of public lands, continental shelves, and the Arctic for increased coal mining and oil and gas drilling. Altogether it was unclear where the balance of opinion of the Task Force would fall. I thought it was realistic to think the scientific information we provided would aid their decision making.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
George Bush Junior had been handed the presidency thanks to the Supreme Court and some hanging chads in Florida, and Al Gore’s willingness to play along, (there’s that footage of the black Democrats knowing what’s coming, desperately trying to overturn it and Gore basically laughing at them… and them good old boys drinking whiskey and rye.
And President Cheney, being an oil man, everyone kind of knew it was coming..
Spencer Abraham, the energy secretary, talking about hundreds of new coal plants, which puts one in mind of President Nixon’s Project Independence.
What I think we can learn from this is that every incoming administration wants to lay out morale-boosting for their side, eye-catching, Big Number targets. Mostly it does not come to pass.
What happened next
It did not come to pass. And then in 2011 Michael Bloomberg funded lots of local anti-coal initiatives, which meant that coal-fired power stations started to not get built/get retired. It didn’t happen by accident.
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-eight years ago, on this day, November 12th, 1976, an article appears in the journal Science.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that more and more articles were getting published in especially Science more than Nature, because there was a proper research effort going on in the United States. And that was not the case in the United Kingdom.
What we learn is long before 1981 when Hansen got wrapped over the knuckles for telling the truth to a journalist, Walter Sullivan at the New York Times, Hansen was telling it like it was. It’s almost 50 years later now. And things have only gotten so much worse.
What happened next. We were warned. We knew. Not enough of us could look into the abyss and also figure out how to do responsible citizenship in sustainable ways. 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.
