Tag: National Academy of Science

Categories
Denial Science

February 18, 2004 – “An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science”

Twenty years ago, on this day, February 18th, 2004, some scientists tried to expose the George W Bush (actually Cheney) Administration for what it was.

“Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science”- Statement to Bush from 62 preeminent scientists including Nobel laureates, National Medal of Science recipients, former senior advisers to administrations of both parties, numerous members of the National Academy of Sciences, and other well-known researchers

http://www.webexhibits.org/bush/1.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bush had pulled out of the negotiations around the Kyoto Protocol, had called for the NAS to do a study and then ignored that study. And was generally being George Bush, aka Dick Cheney’s glove pocket. 

What we learn is that National Academy of Sciences sounds prestigious and powerful, but it has very limited power. They’ve been aware of the potential for climate change since well, at least 1957 when they produced booklets as part of the International Geophysical Year that pointed to it as a possibility. Then lots of research in the 1970s and 1980s… Pleaded with Dubya’s dad, to little (no?) effect. (see January 5,1989 – National Academy of Science tries to chivvy Bush.)

What happened next, Bush won the 2004 election and we had another four years of denial, obfuscation, outright stupidity. It is what it is.

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: 

Feb 18, 1978 – “#Climate Experts see a Warming Trend”

February 18, 2011 – Scientist quits advisor role (because ignored on climate?)

Categories
Coal Fossil fuels Science Uncategorized United States of America

 July 15, 1977 – “Heavy Use of Coal May Bring Adverse Shift in Climate”

Forty six years ago, on this day, July 15, 1977, the New York Times ran a front page story that makes you just groan.  Oh, and by the way, coal use is up in the last year..

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the National Academy of Science had been doing a two year investigation into weather and carbon dioxide and was about to release its report. And clearly a journalist at the Times had been given a tip off and was getting a kind of exclusive in first.

From the 50s some scientists had been saying “hey, carbon dioxide is going to be an issue,” and had slowly been able to build an epistemic community as Hart and Victor would have you call it.

What I think we can learn from this

We knew. It was, literally, front page news.

What happened next

In the mid-late 70s it all started to come together. It was then scuppered/slowed successfully between 1981 and 1985. And then with the scientific meeting in September 1985 at Villach, the push begins again.

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
Australia

July 26, 1977 – Australians warned about cities being flooded #CanberraTimes

On this day, July 26, 1977 the Canberra Times had a story with the cheerful title cities could be flooded.

And, yes – for the third day a row, I am writing about events that happened FORTY FIVE YEARS AGO.

This is the Canberra Times getting a story off “the wire” about that National Academy of Science report that I have been banging on about for the last two days.

With the benefit of hindsight, this closing sentences are amusing.

“The report said there was no cause for panic. But Mr Revelle said, “We have to be prepared to go to other sources than coal in about 50 years”.”

Why this matters. 

The Canberra Times is one of the newspapers for the big decision makers in Australia. “We knew.” But the lurer of coal was too strong…

What happened next?

Four years later the Office of National Information (a spy/analyst outfit) wrote about the Greenhouse effect. Speedy, huh? Another four years or so and we got the Greenhouse Project, courtesy of Barry Jones’ “Commission for the Future.” But I am getting ahead of myself…

Categories
Ignored Warnings United States of America

July 25, 1977 – New York Times front page story “scientists foresee serious climate changes”

On this day, 25 July, 1977 the New York Times ran a front page story, by its science reporter, Walter Sullivan. Its title – “Scientists Fear Heavy Use of Coal May Bring Adverse Shift in Climate“

“Highly adverse consequences” may follow if the world, as now seems likely, depends increasingly on coal for energy over the next two centuries, according to a blue‐ribbon panel of scientists.

“In a report to the National Academy of Sciences on their two‐and‐a‐half‐year study, the scientists foresee serious climate changes beginning in the next century. By the latter part of the 22nd century a global warming of 10 degrees Fahrenheit is indicated, with triple that rise in high latitudes.”

Sullivan, W. (1977) Scientists Fear Heavy Use of Coal May Bring Adverse Shift in Climate New York Times, July 25, p.1
Here’s the report.

Two days later, it made its way into The Times

Why this matters. 

We knew enough by the late 1970s to move from watching brief to “action!”. 

“We” didn’t do that.

What happened next?

Briefed in 1980 by her Chief Scientific Advisor, Margaret Thatcher was incredulous “You want me to worry about the weather.”

Categories
Ignored Warnings United States of America

July 24, 1977 –  Climate change as red light? “No, but flashing yellow.”

On this day, July 24, American climate scientist Thomas F. Malone used the imagery of traffic lights while discussing the two and a half year study by the National Academy of Science into climate change.

“During a press conference convened in late July 1977, for instance, Malone cast the climate problem as a “flashing yellow light,” a clear indication of the academy’s desire to seriously consider the risks of climate change without investing too much in crafting policies that could inflame public anxieties and, in turn, sanction a red-light approach to fossil fuel emissions.” (Henderson 2019: 401)  

See also – “Study Warns of Overreliance on Fossil Fuels,” Colorado Springs Gazette-Telegraph, 25 Jul 1977.

See also Omang (1979).

Why this matters. 

We knew.

What happened next?

You know.


And sorry, but tomorrow’s post is also about this NAS report.

Categories
Ignored Warnings Science United States of America

April 30, 1985 – New York Times reports C02 not the only greenhouse problem

On this day, the 30th of April 1985, The New York Times reported that “Rare Gases May Speed The Warming of the Earth: Rare Gases May Be Speeding Earth’s Warming”

The reporter, James Gleick, opened his story thus

“Tiny quantities of more than 30 rare gases threaten to warm the earth’s atmosphere even more rapidly over the next 50 years than carbon dioxide will, according to a study by a team of atmospheric scientists.

“Their findings reinforce a growing conviction among scientists that the trace gases, many of them industrial byproducts, are playing a leading role in the “greenhouse effect,” the warming of the earth as less and less heat is able to escape the atmosphere.”

This research was then presented at Villach in October of 1985, and helped convince people that climate change wasn’t anthropogenic global warming was not a threat for the relatively distant future, but something that would need a policy response right now. So even before Villach1985 there was a sense that shit was getting real.

Why this matters. 

We need to understand that our problem is not that senior politicians don’t understand the problem. Our problem is that we are unable to keep the problem at the front of their attention and to turn it into a set of policy proposals that are then implemented. 

What happened next?

Well Villach meeting happened WMO. UNDP ICSU. They tried to get the ball rolling that were successful. You got an international treaty, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. And since 1990, we have burned more carbon dioxide, released into the atmosphere, then all of human history to that date, which tells you how successful these international agreements have been.