Categories
United States of America

November 24, 1971 – I’ve seen the future baby, it is murder (Meadows explaining Limits to Growth at US Embassy)

Fifty two years ago, on this day, November 24th, 1971, a Club of Rome researcher is hosted by the American Embassy in London…

At a second meeting in November 1971, Forrester’s lead researcher, Meadows, was flown in to explain the model at an event hosted by the American Embassy.119 https://ucldigitalpress.co.uk/v2-interactive/Book/Article/61/86/4766/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Club of Rome had hired some people at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to do a big computer modelling study, based on Jay Forester’s work which was state of the art at the time, but had obvious shortcomings. There had been a leak of an early draft in the Observer in June, and there was a lot of interest in what the Limits to Growth people were going to say. And so Dennis Meadows, who was one of the research team, was brought over to the United States Embassy in London and gave a briefing on this day. 

What we learn is that The Limits to Growth report in early 1972 was, as we would now say, “well-trailed.” People were talking about all of these issues. And the question of what would happen if we just kept trying to grow the economy 50 or 60 years hence, well here we are and we know. 

What happened next, we kept trying to grow the economy, we ignored the Limits to Growth. People who ought to have known better sneered at it as “Malthus with a computer” and there have been various studies showing that the Limits to Growth people are kind of tracking quite well with reality, which is more than you can say of all the lovely models of economics.

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: 

November 24, 1977 – Canberra Times reports “all coal” plan would “flood US cities”

November 24, 2009 – the Climate War in Australia goes kinetic…

Categories
Science United States of America

1983, Jan 12: RIP to the “master organizer in the world of science”, Carroll Wilson

Jan 12, 1983 – RIP Carroll Wilson, “master organizer in world of science” (and early climate connector)

On this day, in 1983, a man died who you’ve almost certainly never heard of, but is one of the many who tried – ultimately unsuccessfully – to raise the alarm over 50 years ago.

 “Wilson then turned to larger issues, pioneering a new format for studying and publicizing major scientific problems in world development. In 1970, for the first study, he assembled a multi-disciplinary group that produced, in one month, Man’s Impact on the Global Environment. The study was an important catalyst of debate within the U.S. on the greenhouse effect and other major environmental consequences of technology, including the SST. The following year Wilson brought together 35 atmospheric scientists from 15 countries in Stockholm to produce Inadvertent Climate Modification: Report of the Study of Man’s Impact on Climate. 


(Text here. Hyerlinks added by me)

Here’s a four page article  on him, which has him as crucial midwife to the Limits to Growth report – 

“The chain of events which led to the book began when Carroll Wilson introduced Jay Forrester, S.M. ’45, head of the System Dynamics Group at M.I.T., to the Club of Rome – an independent, international forum for the “great issues.” Forrester saw that the problems of growing complexity considered by the Club of Rome lent themselves to computer modeling. He produced two models and one of his collaborators produced a third on which some of Forrester’s colleagues based The Limits to Growth.”

And here is a jpg of an obituary which calls him “a master organizer in the world of science”.

Why it matters – we should pause to remember the efforts of the Revelles, the Bolins, the Wilsons and others. It wasn’t for lack of warning from scientists that we stuffed this one up.  And hoping that another scientist will turn up, with just the right graph, and just the right tone of voice, is at best stupid. At worst it is a wilful refusal to be a citizen.