Tag: Wall Street Journal

Categories
Denial United States of America

June 25, 1996 – Wall Street Journal pretends to be a newspaper

Twenty nine  years ago, on this day, June 25th, 1996 the Wall Street Journal pretended to be a newspaper. 

“Santer immediately drafted a letter to the [Wall Street] Journal, which forty of the other IPCC lead authors signed. Santer explained what had happened, how he had been instructed by Houghton to make the changes, and why the changes were late in coming. At first the Journal wouldn’t publish it. After three tries, Santer finally got a call from the Journal’s letters editor and the letter was finally published on June 25. Santer’s reply had been heavily edited, and the names of the forty other cosigners deleted.

Oreskes and Conway, 2010 Page 208

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the second Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report had said that there was already a discernible impact of human activity on the earth’s climate (It’s hard to remember now, but this was a Big Deal back then). The denialist attack dogs were predictably out for blood, and they had latched onto what they perceived to be a vulnerable scientist, Ben Santer.

What I think we can learn from this:  Assholes like the Global Climate Coalition and the so-called “George Marshall Institute” goons were amplified by “newspapers” like the Wall Street Journal, who were happy to publish hatchet jobs and then refuse significant right of reply.

What happened next  The denialists found a new object of hate – Michael E. Mann.  And the caravan kept rolling on.  The emissions climbed, the concentrations climbed, the consequences climbed. 

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 25, 2002, 2003 and 2008 – CCS’s first hype cycle builds – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

June 12, 1996 – scumbag denialists smear a scientist

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, June 12th, 1996, scumbag denialists attacked a climate scientist.

1996 editorial-page attack on Ben Santer in the Wall Street Journal

Frederick Seitz, in a Wall Street Journal complained that alterations made to Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC report were made to “deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming.” Similar charges were made by the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a consortium of industry interests; specifically, they accused Santer of “scientific cleansing.”[6]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 365ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the attacks on scientists who do “impact science” (as it was dubbed by Alan Schnaiberg in the 1970s) have been going on for a long time. Check out Henrik Ibsen’s “An Enemy of the People”. See also the attacks on those who raised concerns about ozone in the 1970s. From the late 1980s outfits like the George C Marshall Institute and the Global Climate Coalition were honing their skills in smearing any scientist who was warning of trouble ahead.

The specific context was that the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report had come out and included the conclusion that there was already a discernible impact on the climate of human activity. This drove the denialist fools and liars into a frenzy of hate and wrath. They picked on someone they perceived to be vulnerable (what Michael Mann would later dub ‘the Serengeti Strategy’).

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings – watch out for old white men (and others, obvs) who no longer have the social power/cachet that they used to have. They are butt-hurt and will act out.  Especially if they’re paid to do so by powerful material interests.

As “active citizens” – name the tactics – name the smearing, the “Serengeti Strategy”.

Academics might like to ponder – their complicities.

What happened next  Santer survived, has had a great career. The denialists no longer deny, they focus on lies about the cost and reliability of renewables as opposed to fossil fuels.  They deserve to be ignored and/or sent to the Hague.

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.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 12, 1992 – Australia refuses to put a tax on carbon: “It’s a question of who starts the ball rolling. We won’t.”

June 12, 2011 – Nazi smears used by denialists, obvs

Categories
United States of America

September 17, 1987 – Policymakers turn from Ozone to Greenhouse, says Wall Street Journal

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, September 17th, 1987,

Policy Makers Spurred by Ozone Treaty, Considering Tackling ‘Greenhouse’

Effect, WALL ST. J., Sept. 17, 1987

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 349ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the ozone treaty had just been signed. Climate scientists were seriously worried about the buildup of CO2. The September 1985 scientific meeting in Villach, Austria, sponsored by WMO UNEPand ICSU had been pivotal. And since then, US Senators had been alerted repeatedly by Carl Sagan, by NGO briefings. Joe Biden had got in on the act in the run up to his first bid for president.

What we learn is that it’s one thing to deal with a chemical that not many companies make and for which there are substitutes. IT’s somewhat more problematic when you have the whole fossil fuel sector arrayed against you and its pals in the automotive industry. 

What happened next was a God Almighty battle for five years and the forces of predatory delay were successful and continued to be successful, and still being successful in 2024… 

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 17, 1969 – trying to spin Vietnam, Moynihan starts warning about #climate change

September 17, 1987 – report on “The Greenhouse Project” launch

September 17, 2002 – UK Government announces feasibility study into Carbon Capture and Storage

Categories
Uncategorized United States of America

August 1, 1980 – Wall Street Journal does excellent #climate reporting

Forty three years ago, on this day, August 1, 1980, The Wall Street Journal ran a seriously good report on the problem of climate change. It included professors (inc David Rose) and also the view from trade bodies like the National Coal Association. You will be shocked, shocked to learn that they were not sold on the idea that their product was gonna create global chaos… And here we are…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm , but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that more and more scientists were coming out and saying carbon dioxide was going to be a serious factor in climate change. There had been the NAS report in 1977, but more recently, the First World Climate Conference, the Charney report and the G7 meeting in Tokyo, and the Global 2000 report.

So it’s unsurprising that the business press, (the Wall Street Journal fancies itself as the equivalent of the Financial Times but it’s not even close, would want to cover the issue). What’s a little surprising is just how good the article was. There’s a lovely dismissive quote from the coal lobby.

What I think we can learn from this is (1) as ever, if you really want to understand what’s going on in the world, quality business press is the way forward and (2) that the National coal Association was all over the issue. Of course they were. 

What happened next

Three months later, Jimmy Carter lost the presidency and America and the world lost the momentum though it continued to some extent in Europe. 

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.