History of climate denial and "Global Cooling"

[oswald....@hispeed.ch]

Dear Mike and Herb

Dear colleagues,

 

I wonder if it would be helpful to write a history of climate denial. The climate debate is a slowly creeping bandwagon of stakeholders who are in denial of facts.

 

The history of denial would start in the 90s when oil&gas (O&G) industry denied that there was a problem. Back then the mindsets of young climate scientists were formed. They learned that most resistance against their recipe, which was wind&solar (W&S), came from the fossil fuel lobbyists. Nowadays these W&S people hold the keys to virtually all influential positions in climate-related science.

 

Today denial still comes from O&G but also from established science, who still feel that they are in battle against O&G, which is true but blinds them from seeing that they themselves are now in denial of facts. These people get into pension age and will be out of office within the next 10-20 years.

 

Basically we have two layers of denial against active climate cooling. The battle between O&G and W&S is far from over, even though O&G is clearly on the losing end. History will show that W&S is not only more climate-friendly but also more economic. China has realized this long time ago, but Donald never will. Ok, that’s good, W&S wins, but it will probably take another 20 years till the battle is over. Until then the denial of necessity for climate cooling will prevail in established science, it is quite predictable. The argumentative layer of the denial is “Moral Hazard”, but of course that’s in fact an ideological green W&S position with no scientific basis. The problem is, of course, that attacking these people puts you in the camp of O&G. It is important to understand the economic drivers behind this debate, which entails millions of jobs and billions of dollars. Once you realize that, the arguments brought forward pale in importance.

 

HPAC fights for climate cooling, which is neither W&S nor O&G but something third. What we need here is a clear label which differentiates us from both former camps. Unlike the former, who fight for their respective energy sources, the third stream does not produce energy. It produces “Global Cooling”. I think that’s really the best label because it is the direct answer to “Global Warming”. Unlike Direct Climate Cooling (DCC), which also plays with the directness of the measures, the directness in “Global Cooling” is implicit, not explicit.

 

The “Global Cooling” industry will develop within the next 50 years. We see its first, rather useless formations in form of DAC. DAC still reflects a timidity against interference with the climate, which prevents it from being successful. Global Cooling will shed that timidity and will do what is needed: Global Climate Management. Humans will manage the climate and interfere with it, no doubt about it, but it is rather unlikely that we pensioners will see it happen in a big way. Still it gives me hope, because I believe firmly in human ingenuity, even though current affairs throw some of this optimism in doubt.

 

I would ask HPAC to discuss the new wording. “Global Cooling” of course entails two legs of the HPAC triad, GHG removal as well as SRM. For a very long time we can fight together, because we have the same goals and the same foes. We should come together and fight our common cause.  

 

Regards

 

Oswald Petersen

Author of „GeoRestoration – Cool the Climate with Natural Technology“

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://georestoration.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

 

[Tom Goreau]

 

Simplified: some have more twisted insertion trajectories. Not cool!

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/005101dc8afc%24ba6e6160%242f4b2420%24%40hispeed.ch.

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Oswald et al.,

As folks may not may nor may not know, both Gwynne Dwyer and Cynthia Sharf have done work in this area confidentially privately interviewing hundreds (in Dwyer case) of scientists  and scores of climate policy makers (in Sharf case) and reporting out the results. There YouTube recordings of interviews with both - and an HPAC video of a community discussion of the Sharf findings, all with links to references.

Best,

Ron

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 21, 2026, at 11:38 AM, oswald.petersen via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



--

[Michael MacCracken]

Hi Oswald--There are also a couple of books (or more). For example, see Chris Mooney (search Chris Mooney climate on Amazon.com) and Naomi Oreskes (book "Merchants of Doubt" as a starting place) and even Stephen Schneider ("Science as a Contact Sport").

Mike

[robert...@gmail.com]

We talk a lot about others' being in denial.  What about us?  All these great folk writing their books and their papers and their articles and their social media posts and where has it got us?

Do we imagine that if we just keep doing more of the same that we'll reach a tipping point after which there'll be widespread realisation of our predicament followed by rapid concerted action to avert catastrophe?  Why?   Even if it did, would it happen soon enough to avert the catastrophe?  Are we in denial in assuming that rational debate is going to result in timely and effective action?

Are we in danger of confusing action with progress?  Might our action be systemically frustrated from delivering real progress?  Might rational debate simply not be sufficiently muscular to make the necessary difference?

Are we and all our like-minded fellow travellers simply confined in our own echo chamber?  The more we scream, the louder we hear it but the sounds never reach those outside.

Is it time for a proper Revolution?  Should we be teaching Trump what disruption really looks like?

Regards

RobertC

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/b6323efb-65c5-4679-9df0-ce4969a6c98f%40comcast.net.

[Clive Elsworth]

Robert

 

Re: We’re in our own echo chamber

Yes, those are my thoughts too. To reach a wider audience more of us need to speak to much bigger audiences like Herb’s Climate Emergency Forum and Metta’s Project Save the World. NOAC is more like a practising/speculative/educational tool, and I don’t currently have time to edit it into a more publicly appealing video.

 

Re: denial, it strikes me that the climate science community is itself in denial – or at least unaware – of the high risk that emissions will continue at or close to business as usual for the foreseeable future.

 

Clive

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/bd2d94f2-ee96-4fde-aca4-628c6203a22a%40gmail.com.

[Tom Goreau]

I suspect you’re wrong about being the only people to understand the magnitude of the catastrophe we face, I think many more understand it, but are simply shocked into silence.

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/0c5b01dc8b23%242bf84780%2483e8d680%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.

[Michael MacCracken]

Hi Robert C--We've heard for many years from communication specialists about what does not work well, but despite various efforts, it has not seemed that there is a clear single answer for all to use.

It seems to me that what has a better chance of working is an array of approaches where some are able to communicate to some and others to others and rather than spending lots of effort critiquing other approaches, it would better advance things if all would do the best they can in the particular way they see as best and are best at.

Best, Mike

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/bd2d94f2-ee96-4fde-aca4-628c6203a22a%40gmail.com.

[oswald....@hispeed.ch]

Dear Robert,

 

science is about observation, not about action. Action is something for entrepreneurs, investors, engineers…

 

Observing how an industry develops is probably the best an economist can do. If you take the development of wind turbines as an example you can see that the most important first steps were taken by green enthusiasts in the late 80s and the 90s. The core to actually set the progress in motion is the building of a machine. As long as you just discuss something, e.g. in HPAC, you are in fact in an echo chamber as you describe. Discussions do not set the process in motion - but are of course important.

 

The first steps towards actually building machines are happening right now, compare Stardust, AMR and others. Again: If you compare it to wind-turbines, it will take around 20-40 years to create the Global Cooling industry. My best estimate for Global Cooling to be a relevant industry is 2050 - 2060.  

 

Regards

 

Oswald Petersen

Author of „GeoRestoration – Cool the Climate with Natural Technology“

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://georestoration.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/bd2d94f2-ee96-4fde-aca4-628c6203a22a%40gmail.com.

[Sev Clarke]

Dear Oswald,

Your estimate is a little too conservative. Using Buoyant Flakes and Nanobubbles a Global Cooling industry might reach useful regional scale by 2045 - and atmospheric methane destruction using ISA could get there by then too if we use sublimation on land and sea. None of these methods require novel vectors to carry them - just some rather ordinary engineering, funding, approvals and MRV.

Regards,

Sev

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/000d01dc8b82%24152e56c0%243f8b0440%24%40hispeed.ch.

[oswald....@hispeed.ch]

Dear Sev,

 

you are right, things could happen faster. But my estimate is about what WILL happen.

 

Regards

 

Oswald Petersen

Author of „GeoRestoration – Cool the Climate with Natural Technology“

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://georestoration.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/2DF6B12B-EDA8-4603-9A0F-F21319AA2F4C%40icloud.com.

[John Dixon]

Hi Oswald 

Such a history could be useful even if not widely read

Many say that the climate denial campaigns funded by FF corporates simply adopted the successful playbook of the tobacco companies in the 1950s 1960s to distort and cloud the clear medical science results of the link between smoking and lung cancer. They succeeded in delaying legislation in many countries. This has been well documented and analysed in the US -- check history of science literature from UCLA and Harvard

Good luck

John

 

Sent from Android device

--

[oswald....@hispeed.ch]

Dear John,

 

right, the O&G tactics are well documented.

 

However the current denial by established scientists is no better, and very few people are aware of it. The official dogma is that emission reductions alone (ERA) will solve the climate crisis, and that’s clearly untrue. ERA is a green dogma, fuelled by the W&S industry. The Greens are fading away, and so will the dogma, but it will take time. W&S do not really need the ERA ideology, they will thrive anyway.

 

We need an economic perspective for the nascent Global Cooling industry. To get it funded there must be a clear economic perspective. It will happen, but again - it will take time.

 

My impression is that the new industry will form in the Global South. China, India and Arab countries will be at the centre of this development. Europe and US are unable to do this, because of ideological barriers and political and historical constraints.

 

Regards

 

Oswald Petersen

Author of „GeoRestoration – Cool the Climate with Natural Technology“

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://georestoration.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

 

Von: 'John Dixon' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. Januar 2026 12:54
An: oswald....@hispeed.ch
Cc: 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; 'Michael MacCracken' <mmac...@comcast.net>; hsim...@gmail.com
Betreff: Re: [HPAC] History of climate denial and "Global Cooling"

 

Hi Oswald 

.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/4c15982a-141a-499b-8b1e-84f8bb01502d%40email.android.com.

[Robin Collins]

May interest:

Related to why moving the policy agenda seems so hard to do despite available facts and logic, I found this discussion of how difficulty can be due to the success or failure of “narrative”. 

While the specific topic in this story is not at all about climate change, I think it relates very closely to it, partly because of the implications of the crisis. 

Why do people have completely different views of the same thing, even the same facts? Aside from cognitive dissonance, that is… 

“The mind does not reject the data after evaluating it. It fails to perceive it in the first place.”…

“humans rely heavily on narrative to organize information and assign meaning. In other words, we are not natural statisticians.”

Many examples come to mind. See if you agree this is relevant. 

https://www.skeptic.com/article/two-movies-on-one-screen-conflicting-narratives-of-the-renee-good-shooting-in-minnesota/

Robin

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/003e01dc8b9a%24adc70cc0%2409552640%24%40hispeed.ch.

[oswald....@hispeed.ch]

Hi Robin,

 

there is an urgent need to break the narrative of Emission Reduction Alone. Once that breaks, the mind opens up for new solutions.

Science, especially Atmospheric science, is a complicated affair. But breaking the ERA narrative is rather simple. The message is:

 

1. Emission Reductions Alone WILL NOT stop Global Warming.
2. Global Warming requires Global Cooling.
3. Emission Reduction plus Global Cooling WILL stop Global Warming.

 

No more!

 

Now let’s get this out of our echo chamber

 

Regards

 

Oswald Petersen

Author of „GeoRestoration – Cool the Climate with Natural Technology“

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://georestoration.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

 

[Robin Collins]

“Simple”, and yet it hasn’t happened (yet)… that’s the reason I posted the article. 

Robin 

[oswald....@hispeed.ch]

Hi Robin,

 

in German we say: «Steter Tropfen höhlt den Stein» which translates to “Constant dripping wears away the stone”. In the end scientists are open to rational thinking, so we will win this debate eventually.

 

In my experience it is mainly older folks within atmospheric science who adhere to the “moral hazard” dogma. Younger generations are more open-minded when it comes to practical solutions, and they will soon take over the driving seats. OTOH in HPAC there are predominantly older folks, pensioneers, which shows that, once economic constraints are lifted - the mind gets more open for fresh ideas.

 

Regards

 

Oswald Petersen

Author of „GeoRestoration – Cool the Climate with Natural Technology“

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://georestoration.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAKes%3DnF1wwAyJJtCMYuvXA4oPBcW1TEPWok%3DR-r%3DPF7hOEnsTA%40mail.gmail.com.