Tag Archives: Bert Bolin

June 12th, 1996- Denialists attack IPCC and Ben Santer in Wall Street Journal

Frederick Seitz, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed [A Major Deception on Global Warming] 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 whole sordid story of how the Wall Street Journal then refused to publish a letter from Bert Bolin et al in full makes you weep.  The denialist attacks were ‘successful’ but began to raise the costs of remaining within the Global Climate Coalition, and within five years it would be dead.  But not a real problem for them, since it was a case of ‘mission accomplished’ – they’d killed the idea of rich nations agreeing to cut their emissions, and bought more (profitable) time for oil, coal and gas….

As ever, see the disclaimers, help the project and comments policy.

May 11th – 1988 US/Soviet teleconference, 2011, Bush shenanigans

Remember the Soviet Union (you need to be 35 plus to do so…  Well, on May 11th 1988 there was a “teleconference” about climate change – (source)


May 11, 2001: Bush Signs Oil Lobbying Organization’s Executive Order

President Bush signs Executive Order 13211. It is a verbatim copy of a “suggested” order sent in March by American Petroleum Institute official James Ford (see March 20, 2001). The executive order, enigmatically titled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” exempts certain industry actions from federal review. [White House, 5/22/2001; Dubose and Bernstein, 2006, pp. 17]

and on the very same day –

In a letter of 11 May 2001 The White House asked the US NAS for assistance in identifying the areas in the science on climate change where there are greatest certainties and uncertainties. The NAS was also asked for its views on whether there are any substantive differences between the IPCC reports and the IPCC summaries. An answer to the request was expected in early June, i.e., within less than a month. The NAS quickly appointed a special committee under the chairmanship of Dr Ralph Cicerone, chancellor of the University of California, Irving, CA, and a well-known researcher in atmospheric chemistry (and president of the NAS since 2005). Its report was ready in June…
(Bolin, 2007) Page 179

As ever, see the disclaimers, help the project and comments policy.

April 28, 1959 New York Times article reporting on atmospheric carbon increase

…The New York Times for 28 April 1959, referring to the annual meeting of the National  Academy of Sciences, held in Washington, D.C., reported that, “Members of the academy were told that within 40 years the amount of carbon dioxide in the air may have increased from 25% to 30% above the level at the time when man began using fuels. The  effect on climate allegedly might be radical. The matter was discussed by Dr. Bert Bolin of the University of Stockholm.”


Also on this day

in 1975 Newsweek had a cover story on “The Cooling World” What would James Inhofe do without it?

As ever, see the disclaimers, help the project and comments policy.

April 22nd, 1996 – Denialists smearing the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report

“A more organised opposition to the IPCC’s conclusions began in the USA on Earth Day (22 April 1996), with a message distributed widely, including to every member of the US Congress, and with the first issue of the State of the Climate Report attached in which the IPCC conclusions were challenged. However, just as this report was about to be published, the Union of Concerned Scientists denounced it in a press release, based on earlier contributions to the media debate about global warming by the man in charge, Patrick Michaels: “The forthcoming climate change report sponsored by Western Fuels Association is like a lung cancer study funded by the tobacco industry.””

(Bolin, 2007: 128)

Also on this day

1990 New South Wales conservative premier Nick Greiner gives a speech – “The new environmentalism : a conservative perspective”

1998 Hockey Stick paper (Michael Mann) published

As ever, see the disclaimers, help the project and comments policy.

April 18th, 1990 – White House conference on “science and economics research related to global change

George Herbert Walker Bush (like his son after him) made promises about climate change while on the presidential campaign trail that became ‘inoperative’ once he was elected.  Bush Snr had said, for example, that he’d hold a climate conference at the White House within the first year of becoming President.  Fifteen months later, and presumably over the objections of the troglodytes around him, it happened.  Oh, but look who didn’t get invited. Funny that.

Shortly thereafter President Bush invited representatives of the 20 most influential countries in the world to a White House conference on science and economics research related to global change (17-18 April, 1990, in Washington). Even though the [IPCC First Assessment Report] would soon be completed and was intended to serve as the basis for negotiating a climate convention, no invitation to attend the conference was extended to the IPCC. I was surprised and sought an explanation through my contact in the USA (Dr Robert Corell) and I was soon thereafter invited to attend. For the first time I sensed that the IPCC messages might be disturbing the formulation of a US policy about these matters.

(Bolin, 2007) Page 59-60

As ever, see the disclaimers, help the project and comments policy.

March 13, 2001 – President Bush assures friendly senators that the hour of victory is at hand (on Kyoto)

On this day  in 2001 the recently (s)elected PresidentDubya Bush wrote to Senators Hagel, Helms, Craig and Roberts.

My administration takes the issue of global climate change very seriously . . . I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centres such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy . . . I support a comprehensive and balanced energy policy that takes into account the importance of improving air quality . . . I intend to work with Congress on a multiple strategy to require plants to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury . . . I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide . . . A recent Department of Energy Report concluded that including caps on carbon dioxide emissions as part of a multiple emissions strategy would lead to even more dramatic shifts from coal to natural gas for electric power generation and significantly higher electricity prices . . . This is important new information that warrants re-evaluation especially at times of rising energy prices and serious energy shortage . . . we must be very careful not to take actions that could harm consumers. This is especially true, given the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of and solutions to global climate change . . .

All nonsense, as events would prove over the coming years. Bert Bolin (2007; 178) describes it as “a confusing statement and in no way a clear strategy to combat climate change. It rather expresses a wish to avoid criticism from industry and consumers and shows no sign of taking the global climate change seriously.”

As ever, see the disclaimers, help the project and comments policy.