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

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

#111

Post by makomk » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:27 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.

Some resistance is definitely necessary if you care about whether the claims being made are true, yes. For example, take this article about the oceans supposedly soaking up much more heat than previously thought, which made it to HN a year or so ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18352506 The comments are full of people confidently taking it as yet more inevitable evidence that we're even more doomed than previously thought, we need to overthrow the entire system of global industry, etc.

The article was retracted, followed by the underlying study. One of those pesky members of the climate denial movement spotted that they'd messed up their calculations, and the authors basically copped to this. This shouldn't have been necessary. They were using a bizarre, indirect method to try and estimate something we'd already measured directly, and got an answer that contradicted that existing measurement. The first assumption should've been that their method was wrong and it should've taken a hell of a lot of evidence to overcome it, but there's such a strong bias towards claims of climate doom that it got a spot in Nature and uncritical regurgitation in the global press instead. (Part of the problem is that Nature has a general bias towards shocking, novel claims that leads to them publishing dubious work, but it's hard to imagine them being so gung-ho about work leaning in the opposite direction.)

Naturally, most people who read the existing coverage will never see the retractions and will continue to be influenced by the now-retracted claim.

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

#112

Post by aazaa » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:30 PM UTC

nabla9 wrote: post #106

aazaa wrote: post #98

> 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 a…

This is not about scientific debate or scientific doubt. The other side is where scientific debate is happening, the other side injects sponsored misinformation for the public consumption.

It is most certainly about scientific debate. The public already has a distorted view of what science is and how it works. One example: that things are "proven" rather than "disproven," as I noted in my original comment.

The Smithsonian article feeds into that misperception by suggesting that there are "settled" scientific questions.

You could say that in its own way the Smithsonian article has injected misinformation for public consumption. Unfortunately, it is not alone in thinking the ends justify the means when it comes to the question of climate change.

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

#113

Post by ianai » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:32 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…

There’s the distinct possibility of 8c change by 2100 under business as usual. 8c means palm trees at the arctic and no clouds ever forming. If you think that’s a tenable position for life then you’re fully on the denier side.

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

#114

Post by kbutler » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:33 PM UTC

abledon wrote: post #94

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!

To a 2013 article? (HN headline should include 2013)

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

#115

Post by playing_colours » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:37 PM UTC

bjornsing wrote: post #105

xoa wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anthropogenic climate change is not a “scientific fact”. It is absolutely a scientific fact. > and (to the best of my knowledge) an untestable one at that You have no knowledge, so little it's hard to believe that you've in good faith ever looked it up. Foundation: the Earth is an open system, with the Sun providing the primary energy input and radiation into space being the thermal sink. The average energy of the…

I guess the tone of your message reflects what you want science to become. ;P I have no issue with your three points. In fact this simple energy balance model is the primary reason I believe in anthropogenic climate change. But your claim that the three points in combination makes anthropogenic climate change a “scientific fact” is... just unscientific. How can you know what the climate would have been like had there…

You can get information about the past climate unaffected by human activity from geology. There were natural climate changes in the past, caused by different reasons - meteorite impact, volcanic activity, etc.

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

#116

Post by bjornsing » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:41 PM UTC

xoa wrote: post #108

bjornsing wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the tone of your message reflects what you want science to become. ;P I have no issue with your three points. In fact this simple energy balance model is the primary reason I believe in anthropogenic climate change. But your claim that the three points in combination makes anthropogenic climate change a “scientific fact” is... just unscientific. How can you know what the climate would have been like had there…

> I guess the tone of your message reflects what you want science to become. ;P It reflects that this is as certain as literally anything else in science, and that you are actively aiding in hurting people. It is reasonable to be irritated about that. > But your claim that the three points in combination makes anthropogenic climate change a “scientific fact” is... just unscientific. No. WTF? Are you some post-moderni…

It sounds like you have a very narrow definition of anthropogenic climate change. I’ve so far assumed it refers to the concept NASA summarizes like this [1]:

> Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

If your definition is so narrow that it has no causal claim (as in “warming trend is due to human activities”), then by all means: call it a collection of disparate scientific facts. I have no issue with that.

1. https://www.google.se/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/scientific-cons...

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

#117

Post by pmarreck » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:43 PM UTC

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #92

GarrisonPrime wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Precisely because “known to be false” is debatable. Known by who? To what certainty? Etc.

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

#118

Post by rayiner » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:57 PM UTC

ianai wrote: post #113

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…

There’s the distinct possibility of 8c change by 2100 under business as usual. 8c means palm trees at the arctic and no clouds ever forming. If you think that’s a tenable position for life then you’re fully on the denier side.

That’s not a business as usual scenario: https://www.carbonbrief.org/extreme-co2-levels-could-trigger...

> The Representative Concentration Pathways 8.5 scenario (RCP8.5), a very high emissions scenario examined by climate scientists, has the Earth’s atmosphere reaching around 1,100ppm by the year 2100. But this would require the world to massively expand coal use and eschew any climate mitigation over the rest of this century.

Also, it’s clearly a “tenable position for life” because temperatures were that high as recently as 55 million years ago, and mammals survived: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150914-when-global-warming-...

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

#119

Post by lern_too_spel » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:05 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #118

ianai wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s the distinct possibility of 8c change by 2100 under business as usual. 8c means palm trees at the arctic and no clouds ever forming. If you think that’s a tenable position for life then you’re fully on the denier side.

That’s not a business as usual scenario: https://www.carbonbrief.org/extreme-co2-levels-could-trigger... > The Representative Concentration Pathways 8.5 scenario (RCP8.5), a very high emissions scenario examined by climate scientists, has the Earth’s atmosphere reaching around 1,100ppm by the year 2100. But this would require the world to massively expand coal use and eschew any climate mitigation over the rest of th…

When global temperatures were that high, the change happened gradually over many millions of years, allowing ecosystems to adapt.

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

#120

Post by neffy » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:07 PM UTC

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.

Well I´ve worked in the private sector most of my life, and I have observed it to be well staffed with human beings.

And human beings, in my experience, can be lazy, venal, honourable or hardworking, in both the private and the government sector. But the last time I checked, the private sector only cared about the people with money, whereas the government is required to care about everybody.