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

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

#131

Post by specialist » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:22 PM UTC

FabHK wrote: post #58

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…

Another good book in that vein, but more in the political arena (think tanks etc.) is Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right by Jane Mayer.

This is the book that caused me the greatest despair about our current political system. Short of rolling back Citizens United, I can't imagine an effective counter strategy.

Correction: Union -> United

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

#132

Post by AndyMcConachie » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:23 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…

"Their position is, basically, the potential risks of climate change are overstated and extreme solutions are not worth the cost."

Stating that the risk of climate change is overstated is denying the risk of climate change. I don't see how you can interpret it any differently. In your own words they are denying the risk of climate change.

Saying that climate change is happening, but that it is not a risk, is the same thing as saying that climate change is not happening. They're just moving goal posts and being mealy mouthed.

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

#133

Post by prepend » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:25 PM UTC

onemoresoop wrote: post #81

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 way I see it is fighting with the same weapons, deception if it may since this is what climate change deniers do. It is not hard to see some sort of deception on both sides of this issue

Deception on both sides is a failing strategy. A big benefit of the moral high ground is having the high ground. If morals lack on both sides then it is difficult to convince people with evidence, I think.

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

#134

Post by hirundo » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:27 PM UTC

DFHippie wrote: post #56

oaeu098UEOnth wrote: post #29

Individuals not agreeing with ecofascists also come to the point where they donate. http://co2coalition.org/2019/10/11/wall-street-journal-corre...

What is an "ecofascist"?

"Ecofascism is a theoretical political model in which an authoritarian government would require individuals to sacrifice their own interests to the "organic whole of nature" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism

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

#135

Post by gdhbcc » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:27 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.

There have been several points in time where the earth was on average 8° higher.

Furthermore your claim on "clouds will never form" is plainly wrong, and more likely than not, the opposite of what actually happens in a 8° hotter earth.

Climate change is happening, no real doubt about that, but the mindless apocalyptic claims that are parroted around need to stop, because not only are they wrong, but they also decrease the credibility of actual legitimate claims.

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

#136

Post by michaelmrose » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:27 PM UTC

GarrisonPrime wrote: post #93

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.

It's easy to utter when the opposition rarely has anything to do with actual science.

Ever had a conversation with someone who didn't believe in evolution.

Get ready to discuss at length why it being the "theory" of evolution means even scientists know it's less credible than the "law" of gravity.

It's easy to share truths that only know nothings would believe so your opponent knows 78 of them. Debunking them will require knowledge of 17 fields and taking a week to debate the matter

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

#137

Post by NeedMoreTea » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:28 PM UTC

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…

Sure, but there is debate and there is to cast FUD and lies using extreme or disingenuous cherry picking then claim it's a debate.

Were someone to perform a study or experiment, any experiment, that cast genuine doubt on the consensus we could have a debate. Few would be naive enough to claim science is perfect or infallible. Models are imperfect, climate is a massive, complex thing with colossal hysteresis. So, Mr X does an experiment that shows that we're mistaken, and mistaken despite the endless stream of record weather events, species loss, arctic melt and so on. Then people can analyse, discuss, try to replicate and so on.

Not remotely what is happening, is it? Endless trope, but obvious sounding to the layman pieces that prove the planet was warmer xx million years ago, the climate is always changing isn't it, or a few mammals survived the K-T extinction, so humans will clearly be perfectly fine now.

That's not debate, that's the tobacco bullshit distraction and obfuscation playbook.

So please, someone, anyone, find some evidence we're all mistaken, then a real debate can commence on the science of the remarkable study with new findings.

Edit: Actually it strikes me that would be a genuinely fascinating debate to read or participate in. How were we mistaken? How could we possibly miss that effect? Why, what are the implications, etc. Rather than the frustration of hearing weak, irrelevant or facile arguments in a new coat of paint over and over.

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

#138

Post by jonbronson » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:36 PM UTC

pmarreck wrote: post #117

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Known by experts of the field, the ones most qualified to evaluate claims of the field. The experts of this field are in strong consensus, to such a high degree of certainty that it's basically established fact.

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

#139

Post by prepend » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:37 PM UTC

montalbano wrote: post #129

huffmsa wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and you're going to get down voted below the fold. But it's historical dangerous to say "well ALL the good scientists and government scientists think X is true. Anyone who disagrees is on the take." That means you Galileo.

At the time of Galileo, were there extremely powerful corporations whose profits would be boosted by pro-heliocentric and pro-heretical views? The comparison seems a stretch to me but I'm no expert on the life and times of Galileo so I would be happy to be proven wrong.

> At the time of Galileo, were there extremely powerful corporations whose profits would be boosted by pro-heliocentric and pro-heretical views?

Definitely. The State and Church were dominant and depended on a heliocentric view (ie, rule by divine right).

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

#140

Post by specialist » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:39 PM UTC

motohagiography wrote: post #39

Outside climatologists, geophysicists, biologists and other people with scientific training, I am not sure most people are really equipped to argue against evidence of human impact on the climate, or that human activity is a non-factor in change. However, I do think that the policies countries and even municipalities institute in response to the evidence are fair game. Wild lands conservation, green belts on cities,…

"They resent people who use climate change as a proxy for another agenda that is unrelated and inconsistent with the needs of reducing human impact on the planet..."

If you stop at "they resent people", I totally agree. The rest of your statement is just one source of resentment.

People hate being preached at, scolded, criticized. And it's not about intent. It's about how the message is received. Something I was very late to realize and have struggled to adapt. (This reply is a good example of my failings.)

--

On the left, someone might be jazzed about a specific narrow local issue, and then try to tie it back to a larger issue. Which is totally legitimate, intellectually, because everything's connected. But it's a terrible persuasion strategy.

I can't speak first hand to conservative activism, having not participated. Though I've read they're more top-down.