Tag: Los Angeles Times

Categories
United States of America

September 21, 1958, LA Times runs a Greenhouse Cartoon

Sixty six years ago, on this day, September 21st, 1958, the Los Angeles Times ran a truncated version of the full Spilhaus cartoon on the greenhouse effect.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the International Geophysical Year was still underway. Sputnik had gone up, so the Soviets were winning! Charles David Keeling had started his measurements at Mauna Loa. And even before they were complete, people kind of knew, as per Washington Post front page in July 1957, that there was a greenhouse effect that was going to bake us. Spilhaus had done a PhD before the war. He was well aware of Roger Revelle, I think they’d work together. And he’d started doing educational cartoons about science. And here we are. 

What we learn is that mass publics were being educated by cartoons and documentaries like the Unchained Goddess about what was going on. 

What happened next Spilhaus mentioned the greenhouse effect in the 1960 science documentary that appeared, I think, on CBS.

In 1965, Australian cartoonists, science educators also mentioned the greenhouse effect in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. In 1987, Bill Waterson’s Calvin and Hobbes tackled the topic.

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: 

September 21, 1990 – Ministers call for Toronto Target to be federal policy …

September 21, 1993 – Manchester says “no, not hot air”. Yeah, right.

September 21, 2014 – big #climate march in New York. World saved.

Categories
International Geophysical Year United States of America

May 19, 1957 – LA Times asks “Is your smoke helping to melt polar icecaps?”

Sixty seven years ago, on this day, May 19th, 1957 the Los Angeles Times asked the question (not for the first time.) This was all part of the pre-International Geophysical Year (IGY) build-up…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Los Angeles Times had already run some articles about this. And here’s another one. In the context that senior politicians, scientists had been talking about this, not just Revelle, but also Kaplan, Wexler, etc. And it was speculative, but Gilbert Plass by this time had come out with his article in Tellus and was working on one for Scientific American. 

What we learn is that, again, if you were reading a newspaper the idea that over time the carbon dioxide could build up and cause mayhem was explained to you. Whether you chose to remember it, or believe it was up to you.

What happened next, the International Geophysical Year, Sputnik the Keeling Curve, the remorseless rise of emissions and then 30 years later, greenhouse effect would become undeniable. Except to those who chose to deny it, of course.

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: 

May 19, 1937 – Guy Callendar’s carbon dioxide warning lands on someone’s desk

May 19, 1993 – President Clinton begins to lose the BTU battle…

May 19, 1997 – an oil company defects from the denialists. Sort of.

May 19, 1997 – BP boss says “If we are to take responsibility for the future of our planet, then it falls to us to begin to take precautionary action now.”

Categories
United States of America

October 23, 1955 – LA Times article says “our weather is changing”

Sixty eight years ago, on this day, October 23, 1955, the Los Angeles Times ran an article on the changing weather that included mention of carbon dioxide build-up as one of the possible causes…

“Many scientists believe that the earth’s rising temperatures may be partly due to the six billion tons of carbon dioxide dumped into the earth’s atmosphere each year from the smokestacks of industrial plants…”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was that by 1955, there were more and more of these stories because the weather seemed to be changing. And we were taking better measures (not yet satellites, obviously). And talk of “weather modification” (especially as a weapon of war) was all the rage as well. The broader context is, of course, that the people of Los Angeles had more immediate air pollution issues on their plate, namely smog, which they wanted to believe, and were encouraged to believe came from well, anywhere, but the motor car.

(note to self – this was 8 days after the Macleans Magazine article by Berrill; did they just clip it and get a react quote from George Kimble?]

)What happened next

There would be more and more carbon dioxide stories for two years, to the late 50s. And then, oddly, because it was no longer speculation, because it was fact, the whole thing became less newsworthy (especially without the International Geophysical Year hook).

Btw one of the people cited in this article (George Kimble) wrote a 1962 article in the New York Times.

What I think we can learn from this

And I suppose it’s the speculation, “the competing theories” that help a journalist pad out a story and leave the reader with a sense of being informed about an ongoing scientific controversy. Once it’s over, well, the reader then would be focusing on “what can we do?” And certainly on carbon dioxide, not much is the answer, whereas there is a bewildering plethora of solutions for nitrogen, sulphur, etc. See, the “Breath of Life” book published in 1965.

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
United States of America

August 2, 1970 – LA Times runs #climate change front page story

On this day, 53 years ago, the Los Angeles Times ran a front page story “Scientists fear climate change by SST pollution.”

In August of 1970, before the official publication of SCEP, the New York Times and Los Angeles Times – both outspoken critics of the SST- ran articles on the report, playing up the recommendation that the project be delayed. The story made the front page of both papers, with the LA Times declaring “Scientists Fear Climate Change by SST Pollution” and citing concerns about C02 and other gases trapped in the stratosphere. The LA Times quoted Kellogg specifically: “When you change something on a global basis,” Kellogg told the press, “you had better watch out.”

(Howe, 2014:53)

LA Times 2 August 1970

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The Context

That plans for a large fleet of supersonic passenger jets had gotten lots of environmental scientists wondering about the impact on the stratosphere, and ozone. Meanwhile, the Nixon administration had been pushing “the environment” as a topic for international discussion (something the Swedes had started), to change the topic from the attack on the people of Vietnam. The LA Times folks will also have known that the Council on Environmental Quality was about to release its first report, and that there was a chapter on … climate change in there, written by Gordon MacDonald.

What we can learn

We knew. But then, if you’ve been following this site, you knew we knew.


What happened next

Nixon wangled a moratorium on SSTs, hoping to regroup, but Congress got in and turned it into a ban. Fun fact – this failure was one of the key moments in the development of the planet-killing think tank “The Heritage Foundation”, set up to make sure Congress got lobbied effectively by business interests. (Blah blah Edward Feulner).

Kellogg organised a three week symposium on “Man’s Impact on Climate” the following year.