The Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement (2013) • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by wk_end » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:47 PM UTC

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…

No one should have trouble believing that Republicans may be more pro-nuclear - even if you're pro-nuclear and take the most cynical possible view of the GOP, it's a way to produce energy and make money, why wouldn't they be? The anti-nuclear push comes from (yes, overblown) environmental concerns, and those rarely bother the GOP.

But your post above very much makes it sound like the GOP is actively trying to fight climate change through nuclear power, and those darn Dems just won't let them. But since attaining power in 2016 the GOP environmental position looks to have mostly been gutting the EPA, rolling back regulations, and braying about bringing back coal ("clean air" indeed!). From here it looks like the GOP is just utterly indifferent towards climate change or the environment and extremely pro-fossil fuel; any interest in nuclear they might have doesn't appear to have much to do at all with it being a path towards clean energy.

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

#92

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:50 PM UTC

GarrisonPrime wrote: post #86

INGELRII wrote: post #46

There is a great book: "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" Two things to learn from the book: 1) The are same people and organizations behind many science related denials: DDT, tobacco, SDI defenders, acid rain, ozone hole, and climate change denial are linked to same group of people. They try to "maintain the controversy" and "keep the d…

While I don’t doubt your assertion that a select few are responsible for the bulk of the push-back on such issues, I think it’s good to have some resistance. Humans are so prone to wishful thinking and following consensus, it can be healthy to keep the debate alive longer than one might think necessary. It helps one clarify your position to yourself, for one.

How is flooding a consensus forming process with information that is known to be false possibly helpful with improving the accuracy of the process?

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

#93

Post by GarrisonPrime » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:51 PM UTC

dilap wrote: post #79

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 cert…

Agreed. Their fanaticism makes it hard to view some of these zealots with any credence.

At one point, it was common for exasperated speakers to claim “there’s no point discussing it further; the science is settled”. Which is about the least scientific thing that could ever be said.

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

#94

Post by abledon » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:51 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #68

The underlying study is misleading, and the article’s characterization of the findings is outright deceptive. The article claims that “nearly a billion dollars a year is flowing into the organized climate change counter-movement.” That billion dollars is the total funding flowing into a variety of conservative and pro-market organizations, which advocate on a wide variety of issues. The underlying study and the artic…

The author posts his link at the bottom, I am sure he would appreciate your point, as he may include an addendum. Contact him!

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

#95

Post by GarrisonPrime » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:52 PM UTC

ykevinator wrote: post #55

huffmsa wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 they pay for sewage and libraries

Much less efficiently than the private sector could.

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

#96

Post by kaybe » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:55 PM UTC

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…

Have a look yourself in a model created from physical principles:

https://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/en/arbeitsgruppen/theoretische...

(Expect a stationary state to take at least 50 years to run after starting or disturbance (such as changing incoming radiation or CO2) since the ocean model is a mixed layer and takes a while to equilibrate. In the real world the ocean mixing time is ~1000 years though.)

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

#97

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:56 PM UTC

oaeu098UEOnth wrote: post #85

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike Climate Change Modelling, Limits to Growth never had the support of 97% of domain-relevant scientists. And before someone says "Yes, but..." - just because someone is a contrarian doesn't make them right. Galileo was right because he was a more honest scientist than the fact-deniers around him. That's exactly where we are today - with the difference that the fact-deniers are the ones running the climate change…

Absolutely, they deny facts like natural climate oscillations, or that CO2 is actually a good thing for plants, and thus, for humans.

You do realize that water "is a good thing for humans", but that drowning is still deadly, right?

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

#98

Post by aazaa » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:56 PM UTC

> And yet, for some reason, the idea persists in some peoples' minds that climate change is up for debate, or that climate change is no big deal.

Hold it right there.

Anthropogenic climate change (not just that the earth is warming, but that we are responsible) is a scientific hypothesis. Like all hypotheses, it cannot be proven true, only disproven by contradictory evidence.

Doubt is a critical element in testing any hypothesis. Success by doubters in poking experimental holes in hypotheses is how science moves forward.

When a hole is poked into a widely-held hypotheses, that's the stuff of scientific revolutions. Also, groupthink is a real thing and has exerted a powerful hold over scientists of every generation. For these reasons, widely-held hypotheses should be viewed with some skepticism anyway.

Every scientific hypothesis is "up for debate," and the day that isn't true is the day science dies, replaced by yet another form of tyrannical religion.

It's disturbing to see this kind of talk coming from Smithsonian.

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

#99

Post by yawz » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:56 PM UTC

GarrisonPrime wrote: post #86

INGELRII wrote: post #46

There is a great book: "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" Two things to learn from the book: 1) The are same people and organizations behind many science related denials: DDT, tobacco, SDI defenders, acid rain, ozone hole, and climate change denial are linked to same group of people. They try to "maintain the controversy" and "keep the d…

While I don’t doubt your assertion that a select few are responsible for the bulk of the push-back on such issues, I think it’s good to have some resistance. Humans are so prone to wishful thinking and following consensus, it can be healthy to keep the debate alive longer than one might think necessary. It helps one clarify your position to yourself, for one.

As an engineer and a scientific thinker I agree with having some skepticism. After all we try to “disprove“ hypotheses in science.

However, what we are suffering from as a species at the moment is more related to what Bertrand Russell described as:

“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt.”

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

#100

Post by kaybe » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:57 PM UTC

dilap wrote: post #79

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 cert…

Meanwhile, the scientists start joining Extinction Rebellion. That should tell you something.