Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement (2013)

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 276 posts

Re: The Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement (2013)

#71

Post by colinator »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #54
colinator wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yeah, "politely waiting". You mean "denying the very existence of a problem". Meanwhile: is it? How do you know?

The Republicans have been in support of nuclear power since before you ever even heard of "climate change." Back then we just called it "clean air." Are you interested in saving the planet, or are you interested in shaming Republicans? https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-... >Republicans (65%) are more likely than Democrats (42%) to favor the use of nuclear power.

Well, at this point the GOP is fully deserving of shame. Are they coming up with a grand plan to solve climate change with a new nuclear industry? If so, I'd love to hear it! But sadly, no: they're denying there's a problem in the first place.

Re: The Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement (2013)

#73

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

LessDmesg wrote: post #7
SiempreViernes wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but it's more interesting to find out who funds opposition to saving the world, right? If you look to see who funds climate change advocacy I expect you'll find governments doing most of it, with various ngo's doing most of the rest. Look at the ngo's and you'll find maybe soros or gates as prominent, but I don't think there will be much concentration: the environment movement is a real popular movement, not as…

Nah, the "environment movement" as you call it is obviously funded by the governments looking for an excuse to raise taxes. It's the governments giving away grant money to fund the "scientific consensus" (another ridiculous term). Meanwhile, this has nothing to do with "saving the world", only with the sovereign debt crisis. United States, EU and Japan are dead broke, they will try every ploy to raise taxes and steal…

I dont understand why you are downvoted.

Re: The Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement (2013)

#74

Post by huffmsa »

fallingfrog wrote: post #48
huffmsa wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exxon is one of the top 5 investors in renewables research. They're not idiots, they know they're going to run out of oil, and they're legally obligated to make sure their shareholders don't lose all of their money. So they're preparing for the future.

All the fossil fuel deposits and companies in the world are worth probably at least 10 trillion dollars. Not to mention the value of all the businesses that depend on the products they sell. You think they’re going to just write that off? They’re going to fight with every bit of strength they have to make sure that the fuels are available to extract, and every government in the world is going to help them. I just wan…

They are going to, of course. But they're also looking forward to make sure they don't have to go bankrupt.

Re: The Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement (2013)

#75

Post by Ididntdothis »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #28
wk_end wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point to any source that indicates that the GOP, broadly, is pro-nuclear and anti-CO2 like your comment suggests? I'm skeptical but genuinely open to the possibility of being corrected.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-... >Republicans (65%) are more likely than Democrats (42%) to favor the use of nuclear power. Republicans typically have been more supportive of nuclear energy throughout Gallup's trend dating back to 1994. It's true Republicans aren't as hung up specifically on CO2, but Republicans have been largely in support of nuclear since before you ever heard the phr…

I don't recall the GOP advocating for nuclear power. They are less opposed to it but I have never heard that they actively pursued it.

Re: The Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement (2013)

#76

Post by DFHippie »

LessDmesg wrote: post #21
erpellan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, NASA was funded to collect the actual data until Trump arrived. The facts don’t care if you don’t like them and they don’t go away if you cover your eyes like a child and pretend they’re not there.

The facts are that nobody knows how climate works and there is no proof that humanity controls climate. The facts are that there is a large propaganda machine in the media using dirty tactics (e.g. a mentally ill child) to spread fearmongering and doomsday bullcrap. The facts are that there is big money behind this climate religion that has nothing to do with helping the environment (reality check: carbon dioxide is…

If you call someone "mentally ill" you are implying they do not make decisions rationally. Do you believe this about people with Aspbergers? If you do not, why is it relevant that she was so diagnosed?

There are many incidental characteristics of Greta Thunberg that Fox News might have chosen to emphasize: she likes horizontal stripes, perhaps, or she wears her hair in a braid. Why didn't these become what they focused on? Do you suppose they think aspies are irrational? Immoral? Amoral? Or do you suppose they think people will hear "mentally ill" and think these things. If it's the latter, it's dishonest and libel.

Re: The Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement (2013)

#77

Post by wincy »

huffmsa wrote: post #41
neffy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a group of people is allowed to consistently get away with not paying their taxes, then fairly quickly, just by the operation of the monetary system, they will be the only people with any money. The real question is, are these really the people you want in control?

No, the real question is why do you think that "the government" is entitled to a percentage of your money, and why you think they can spend it better than the private sector.

Because someone at some point started thinking that social outcasts who are wholly unable to maintain even the most tenuous of social connections/support networks shouldn’t starve in the streets with their children, and instead of charity the government can be seen as “the good guy” by just giving out stolen money instead of money freely given. It weakens the power of churches, makes the politicians more powerful since they’re controlling the bread and circuses. It’s a win win for those in power.

Re: The Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement (2013)

#78

Post by rapnie »

hogFeast wrote: post #35
luckylion wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what exactly qualifies as "climate denial", so I'm not even sure which group that is. Everybody who doesn't 100% agree with policies that are suggested and refer to "climate change" as their argument? Global-Warming Skeptics would fit the bill much better, and doesn't have that bitter taste of sounding insanely propaganda-esque, but I guess it also doesn't have the same bang.

The article actually makes this clear: if you believe that "climate change is up for debate, or that climate change is no big deal"...then you are a "climate denier". I wonder if the guys at Smithsonian read some of the research on this from the 70s. Much of that turned out to be woefully inaccurate - Limits to Growth most famously - and that did massive damage...lesson learned? I think not.

There has been a lot of criticism on Limits to Growth, but there has also been a lot of positive review in recent years e.g.:

> "In 2008, Graham Turner of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) found that the observed historical data from 1970 to 2000 closely match the simulated results of the "standard run" limits of growth model for almost all the outputs reported. "The comparison is well within uncertainty bounds of nearly all the data in terms of both magnitude and the trends over time."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth#Positiv...

Re: The Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement (2013)

#79

Post by dilap »

I've gone from just sort of blankly accepting that, of course, global warming is true + catastrophic, to now wondering if it's over-hyped or uncertain. The kinds of arguments around it make it seem more like a moral or even religious hysteria than a well-supported belief. Science should invite skepticism and questioning, not try to shut it down w/ shouts of someone being a "denier".

A little bit of warming seems certain; the catastrophic scenarios, not so certain.

https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2017/06/epistemic-caution-and-...

Reducing fossil fuel use is still the prudent thing to do, of course.

Re: The Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement (2013)

#80

Post by bjornsing »

FabHK wrote: post #49
bjornsing wrote: post #40

> Clarifying the institutional dynamics of the CCCM can aid our understanding of how anthropogenic climate change has been turned into a controversy rather than a scientific fact in the U.S. I know how unpopular this comment will be in some circles, but I feel I have to say it anyway: Anthropogenic climate change is not a “scientific fact”. It is a theory, and (to the best of my knowledge) an untestable one at that.…

Sure, just like quantum mechanics and evolution are "just theories". In other words: our current best understanding of the world, provisional (subject to further revision or even deeper, more fundamental understanding), but extremely well established and most definitely the most rational position to hold.

Yes. I wouldn’t want to call quantum mechanics or evolution more than a theory either. QM has the advantage that it makes a lot of very precise predictions that can be tested. Evolution has the (weaker) advantage that pure chance is not an alternative explanation for the data.

Anthropogenic climate change unfortunately lacks those two advantages.

Post reply on HN