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

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

#141

Post by starvingbear » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

montalbano wrote: post #127

starvingbear wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I referred to the era more than the nazis but you are essentially correct. Other than the decently researched part which others have done a good job breaking down in the other threads

What do you mean by Nazi `era` propaganda? It's surprising to me that you did not foresee that the emphasis, for the reader of your comment, would be on the word Nazi, which brings to mind propaganda that is far more disconcerting than the Smithsonian article.

It was a time of a lot of apprehension and war so the kinds of propaganda/marketing of that era were interesting from every country and sometimes business. We are in a different time now but some of the way science and language is subverted are very similar.

The climate language first it started as skeptic, which is inherently anti-science since any scientist should be a skeptic and consensus is nonsense. Climate warming and cooling (if you're old enough to remember that) was re-branded to change. Skeptic is now denier, an extremely negative connotation title. You can see how everything is ramped up until your enemies are on the extreme opposition.

I get your criticism. My intention was to go at the style of propaganda not the scope. If they are going to label me a denier and evoke extreme reactions to an oppositional view, that doesn't mean I should do the same to them.

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

#142

Post by dd36 » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:45 PM UTC

makomk wrote: post #111

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.

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 prev…

Primary difference is good faith and bad faith. Most denialism is bad faith and doesn’t make honest retractions.

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

#143

Post by dd36 » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:48 PM UTC

gdhbcc wrote: post #135

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.

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 decreas…

Why are they wrong?

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

#144

Post by michaelmrose » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:50 PM UTC

huffmsa wrote: post #67

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.

Unless you pay a private firm to drill a well and put a septic tank in the ground. Cost a few thousand dollars, and a few hundred every few years to have them come and pump the tank. I pay Amazon ~$10 a month for access to more reading, listening and video content than most major university libraries have access too. No late fees either. Of course sewage is better handled at the municipality level in dense areas, and…

Anyone who thinks Amazon is a fit replacement for libraries hasn't thought the matter through much.

If one has 12-48k to pay rent this year a few hundred for a machine, about 1k for internet access then one can pay 10 a month to access a worse collection a homeless man could check out at the library.

Access to the rest of human knowledge is available for 10 to 100 a pop.

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

#145

Post by carapace » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:51 PM UTC

I'm given to understand that climate denialism is more-or-less confined to the USA, can anyone shed some light on that?

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

#146

Post by gjm11 » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:53 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 official position of organizations like Heritage Foundation is not to deny that climate change is happening

Not now, but the official position of, say, the Heritage Foundation has always been the most do-nothing position that they might hope much of the public would accept. As the evidence mounts they have to back off a bit. Let's take a quick trip back in time:

Heritage Foundation in 2010: https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/how-the-scientif...

First sentence of abstract: "The only consensus over the threat of climate change that seems to exist these days is that there is no consensus." (This was not true then any more than it is now, of course.)

Heritage Foundation in 2001: https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/warming-the-trut...

"The human influence on global climate change is small and will be slow to develop." (This was not mainstream science then any more than it is now, of course.)

Heritage Foundation in 1998: https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/no-evidence-...

Title: "No evidence for global warming".

Heritage Foundation in 1992: https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/guide-the-global...

"Question #1: Is the Earth warming as a result of human-caused greenhouse gases or because of natural phenomena? [...] The existing scientific evidence does not give clear answers to these questions."

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

#147

Post by ZeroGravitas » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:54 PM UTC

[flagged]

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

#148

Post by dwaltrip » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:55 PM UTC

colinator wrote: post #63

[flagged]

It worked on my dad. He thinks there is a variety of respected conservative groups with "reasonable" opinions about how climate change is overblown and not settled science.

Sigh... We can't really talk about it anymore, it was affecting our relationship.

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

#149

Post by tasty_freeze » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:56 PM UTC

specialist wrote: post #131

FabHK wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Citizens United

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

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

#150

Post by yodsanklai » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:57 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,…

> The people I know who dismiss climate activism and its acknowledgement don't disagree with the science. 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

What if preservation of the environment is simply incompatible with some political/economic ideology? how are you supposed to propose solutions without challenging the culprit ideology?