Tag: New York Times

Categories
Arctic

February 20, 1969 – The Arctic will melt

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, February 20, 1969,

“Col. Bernt Balchen, polar explorer and flier, is circulating a paper among polar specialists proposing that the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two.”

Expert Says Arctic Ocean Will Soon Be an Open Sea Catastrophic Shifts in Climate Feared if Change Occurs; Other Specialists See No Thinning of Polar Ice Cap

By WALTER SULLIVAN February 20, 1969. New York Times.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Arctic had been perceptibly warming since the end of the 19th century. And this had been spotted onwards and onwards from 1916 onwards. It was not a particularly controversial finding, though, the mechanism was in dispute, and the speed with which the changes would hit were within dispute.

The specific context was that all things environmental were a hot topic, because in January of 1969 the Santa Barbara oil spill had happened. You’d also had the Earth Rise photo from NASA, and everyone was beginning to worry about the impacts of man’s activities.

What I think we can learn from this is that we’ve known that we were causing havoc and mayhem for a long time. We haven’t always been accurate on how that havoc and mayhem would unfold, because, well, after all, prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. It’s worth noting that Walter Sullivan, their science correspondent, had been neck deep in the International Geographical Year, publicity or reporting, so he knew what he was talking about.

It was also Sullivan who, in 1981 reported on James Hansen’s findings, I think, in August, and that ended up costing Hanson some funding, which had already been granted because the Reagan administration was, well, the Reagan administration. 

What happened next: More and more attention paid to the melting of ice caps and the freeing up of polar sea lanes, etc. And now as of 2026, well, the fights are on.

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: 

February 20, 1966 – US Senators told about carbon build-up by physicist

February 20, 1970 – South Australian premier sets up an Environment Committee

February 20, 2017 “Clean Coal” money being spent on PR

Categories
Technophilia technosalvationism United States of America

February 8, 1991 –  New York Times and climate tech nonsense

Thirty five years ago, on this day, February 8, 1991 the “Grey Lady” was peddling the usual soothing lullabies…

Technology Is Found to Exist To Cut Global Warming Gases – The New York Times

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that “technology will fix it” is the first cry of technocrats and politicians wary of upsetting their incumbent donors.  Sometimes technology does indeed fix things – vaccines are pretty fantastic, and so many other things.  But not always…

The specific context was that the climate issue had finally broken through in 1988. By early 1991 the negotiations for an international treaty were beginning, and the US line would be “technology will fix it.”  The New York Times, one mouthpiece for this worldview, was doing its job.

What I think we can learn from this is that we are a bright species, but not quite as bright as we think, and not bright enough to see that our brightness is causing problems that our brightness might not be able to fix.

What happened next:  The Times kept peddling this credulous nonsense. People wanted to believe it, so they did.  Only by the 2020s was that particular lullaby beginning to take on fingers-on-the-blackboard characteristics.

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: 

February 8, 1956 – Roger Revelle sexes up the dossier to House Committee on Appropriations 

February 8, 1973 –  American ecologist explains carbon build-up to politicians

February 8, 1988 – BBC Horizon on The Greenhouse Effect

Categories
Denial United Kingdom United States of America

September 9, 1971 – Stephen Schneider’s letter, and a World Model

Fifty four years ago, on this day, September 9th, 1971 climate scientist Stephen Schneider wrote a letter to the New York Times about some industry bullshit that the Times had run as a n op-ed.

AND on the same day, things were a foot in the United Kingdom

“Whereas Bray had been highly sceptical of the World model, Cottrell had been enthused by its demonstration. Returning to Britain, he proposed that the British government develop a similar model, stating his belief that ‘Forrester’s approach is the most important development of its kind since Keynes’ general theory’.117

Given the centrality of Keynesianism in post-war economic policy, this was a significant claim. Heath, as his early enthusiasm for management science had revealed, had some interest in forecasting and simulation, and gave his permission for a scoping study on the feasibility of a British world model. Cottrell held a meeting on the subject at the Cabinet Office in September 1971, in which he had told the assembled civil servants that developing a global model for British purposes would require £50,000 and four staff. In response, an unnamed civil servant argued that the Treasury had a more sophisticated econometric model that it used for forecasting. Despite this criticism, the general idea of a global environmental model was well received, and further work was proposed.118 “

Histories of Technology, the Environment and Modern Britain

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 326ppm. 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 in the late 1960s people started worrying about the global impact of industrialisation and population growth (as distinct from concerns about localised pollution).

The specific context was that a) Schneider was already making a name for himself as combative and b) the British state was beginning to think about systems modelling (aware that the Club of Rome report was coming)…

What I think we can learn from this is that there was mention of carbon dioxide and limits to growth way back when. It had pushed out from the undergrowth in the late 1960s…

What happened next: By 1973, we were back to sleep, for the most part. A few new NGOs, a couple of magazines (Your Environment, The Ecologist).  It is very very hard to combat a world view.

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 9, 1947 – The Daily Worker talks about melting the ice-caps

September 9, 1971 – of Australian Prime Ministers and American scientists…

September 9, 1990 – classic (?) film Mindwalk released

Categories
United States of America

August 29, 1981 – New York Times editorial “Heating up the Atmosphere”

Forty four years ago, on this day, August 29th, 1981, a week after a front page story “Study finds warming trend that could raise sea levels,” the New York Times editorialised

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.

Opinion | Heating Up the Atmosphere – The New York Times

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.

Also on this day: 

August 29, 1990 – The Australian mining and forestry industries threaten to spit the dummy

August 29, 2005 – Hurricane Katrina

August 29, 2008 – business tells Labor to go softly (Labor then does, obvs).

Categories
Hydrogen United States of America

May 12, 1974 – an early dose of Hydrogen Hope/Hype

Fifty one years ago, on this day, May 12th, 1974, the Grey Lady (New York Times) runs a story about the colourless gas…,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Arab oil embargo, in response to US support for Israel during the Yom Kippur war, had spiked oil prices. While the oil companies were coining it, everyone was looking around for Alternatives

(environmental considerations around energy production were not an issue for most people at this point).

What I think we can learn from this– the Hydrogen hype has waxed and waned and waxed and waned… There is little new under the sun.

What happened next fossil fuels managed to maintain their “indispensible” status (with a little help from their friends, who starved the alternatives, including solar, efficiency etc, of research and development funds…). The emissions climbed, the atmospheric concentrations climbed. Fun fact – by the late 1970s, Exxon (and other oil companies) absolutely knew what was coming.

And we are here, now, at the end of the world, more or less, give or take some decades of horror.

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 12, 1971 – Swedish protest against the culling of Stockholm trees (the “Elm Conflict”) – All Our Yesterdays

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

May 12, 1995 – Another bet between cornucopians and realists

Categories
United States of America Weather modification

June 15, 1947 – Control the rain and you will reign!!

Seventy seven years ago, on this day, June 15th, 1947 an experiment took place…,

The classic cold-war pronouncement on weather control belongs to General George C. Kenney, commander of the Strategic Air Command: “The nation that first learns to plot the paths of air masses accurately and learns to control the time and place of precipitation will dominate the globe.” New York Times 15 June 1947

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 310ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The first experiment with creating rain clouds was by tipping dry ice into them. 

The context was that we just split the atom. Surely control of all of nature could not be far behind. And if you can make it rain, make the deserts bloom. You can feed the world, you can control the world. 

What we learned is the ancient dreams of predicting or even controlling the weather. Got turbo boosted with the coming of turbo jets. See what I did there? 

What happened next, lots of excitement about weather modification. And that also ended up kind of morphing into concern about inadvertent weather and climate modifications, including carbon dioxide build-up. And by the late 50s, this was being spoken of by all sorts of people. 

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: 

June 15, 1994 – Canberra Times soils itself by publishing denialist claptrap

The Guardian holds a climate summit. We. Are. Saved. June 15, 2009.

Categories
Science United States of America

May 24, 1953 – NYT on “How industry may change climate”

Seventy one years ago, on this day, May 24th, 1953, the New York Times reported on Gilbert Plass’s statements at the American Geophysical Union’s meeting a couple of weeks earlier. The article was by Waldemar Kaempfert, who’d write something else on the topic in October 1956, just before his death.

https://www.nytimes.com/1953/05/24/archives/how-industry-may-change-climate.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The New York Times makes explicit mention of carbon dioxide buildup from industry as something that will heat the planet. This is from their science writer Walter Kaempffert.

The context is that a couple of weeks later earlier, Gilbert Plass, a Canadian physicist had made a startling presentation to the American Geophysical Union, and this had travelled around the world [Conversation article link].

What we learn is that it’s been 71 years since the warnings started coming from people who weren’t “merely” steam engineers. 

What happened next – It was taken seriously, as it were, in the 1950s, then seemed to fall off for 10 years. And then came back in the late 60s and then fell off again, came back in the late 80s. And here we are 35 years after that, having increased our emissions by about 70%. 

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 24, 2000- Australian denialist nutjobs have nutjob jamboree

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

Categories
United States of America

May 15, 1932 – great deluge forecast by science, reports New York Times…

Eighty-two years ago, on this day, May 14th, 1932, The New York Times ran an article about a giant flood, with the ice-caps melting and all the rest of it.

“… there will be another deluge. Salt water will sweep over the continents, leaving only the higher land dry. Holland will be inundated. Fish will swim in Buckingham Palace and Westminster Abbey, for most of England will lie beneath the waves. The Desert of Sahara will be a great inland see. What is now New York will be marked by the upper stories and towers of the taller skysrapers as they jut out of the water.”

And when can we expect this? “[W]ithin 30,000 or 40,000 years”…

NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents

https://www.nytimes.com/1932/05/15/archives/next-great-deluge-forecast-by-science-melting-polar-ice-caps-to.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 308ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was similar as a few days ago (May 10) with the Daily Oregonian, the world seemed to be warming. Guy Callendar was aware of this. Other people were aware of this. The Arctic seemed to be possibly melting. 

For journalists, it didn’t matter – even if it wasn’t really happening, it was a news story that filled some column inches, “all the adverts fit to print all the news printed to fit.” 

What we learn is that the idea of warming was not particularly controversial, and was picked up after the war in 1950.

What happened next? The New York Times kept reporting on this stuff. And in May of 1953 science correspondent Walter Kaempffert, wrote an article based on Gilbert Plass’s speech at the American Geophysical Union…

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 15, 2006 – Australian Prime Minister John Howard spouting “nuclear to fix climate” nonsense

May 15, 2010 – another pointless overnight vigil.

Categories
United States of America

April 17, 1981 – David Burns writes in New York Times about trouble ahead

Forty three years ago, on this day, April 17th, 1981, the alert was sounded. Again.

WASHINGTON – The atmosphere’s carbon-dioxide content has increased 7 percent since 1958, when systematic measurement began. Scientists fear that the continued use of fossil fuel and continued land-clearing and destruction of forests will raise the quantity of CO2 to double the pre-industrial level. We fear that if the theoreticians of climate are correct, sometime in the next 100 years there will be a virtually irreversible shift in the Earth’s climatic pattern; it would be on a scale unprecedented in human history. Such a ”greenhouse effect” could lead to great disruption; there might be benefits, but also costs, such as widespread hunger.,,,

17 April 1981 OpEd in NYT by David Burns of AAAS https://www.nytimes.com/1981/04/17/opinion/climate-and-co-2.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that the push for awareness of action on carbon dioxide had been steadily increasing from the late 70s. You’d had the National Academy of Sciences report energy and climate in 1977. You’d had the Charney report in the aftermath of the First World Climate Conference. You’d had the Global 2000 report. And more recently, the Council on Environmental Quality. There were meetings being organised by NASA IEA, WTF WMO, UNEP, etc. And so although it may seem and James Hansen was beginning to make a noise, and although therefore it may seem early, and the first time I saw this article I thought, “wow, that’s early,” it really isn’t. 

What we learn is that this issue has been with us for 45 years, really, as a public policy issue. I mean, yes, it exploded in public attention in 1988. But policymakers were scratching their heads about it in the early 80s, or rather, the decent ones were. The thugs and buffoons were being focused on being buffoons, useful idiots for their lords and masters. 

What happened next, it would be another four years before the flow of concern about climate in the problem stream really began to kick off and another three before it breached the dams. 

David Burns was there at the AAAS meeting in Washington DC with James Hansen et al in January 1982

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: 

April 17, 1993 – Paul Keating versus the idea of a carbon tax…

April 17, 2007 – UN Security Council finally discusses the most important security issue of all…

Categories
United States of America

March 31, 1968 – Can the world be saved?

Fifty six years ago, on this day, March 31st, 1968, the ecologist LaMont Cole pondered the Big Question…

Cole, L. 1968. Can the world be saved? New York TImes, March 31.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that people were beginning to freak out about not just the bomb, but also the Population Bomb, local air pollution, national air pollution a sense of fragility and weakness.

This might be tied to the in this instance of the Tet Offensive and the question of whether rich white people could continue to dominate.

LaMont Cole at this point was worried about the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere potentially dropping and causing us all to choke to death; that was revealed to be not something to worry about a couple of years later.  

What we learned is that you know, people were reading this stuff and it was sensitising them. When things like the Santa Barbara oil spill came along, in late January of 1969, folks could join the dots and go, “oops.” 

What happened next, the Santa Barbara oil spill. People joining the dots and going “oops.”

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 31, 1998 – another report about #climate and business in the UK

March 31, 1998 – two business-friendly climate events in UK and Australia