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

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

#151

Post by huffmsa » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:58 PM UTC

neffy wrote: post #120

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.

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.

But that means the private sector only has to focus on what makes them money,and they must do it well, or else they go away.

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

#152

Post by yodsanklai » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:07 PM UTC

Brakenshire wrote: post #65

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,…

That is a legitimate criticism of a lot of the environmental movement, but the viewpoint you’re describing is not from the mainstream of conservative thought. Conservatives are invited to put themselves at the heart of tackling climate change, by proposing policies which can reduce carbon emissions at a fast enough rate without overturning the economic system. I personally think that is the most credible way of tackl…

> But first they have to stop denying warming is happening

I believe that they can see that reducing carbon emissions is entirely incompatible with their usual line of thoughts and policies. They need either to renounce to their ideology, or deny/minimize climate change.

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

#153

Post by huffmsa » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:08 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #144

huffmsa wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A cellphone, a cheap data plan + prime will run you ~$500 at the most.

Or ~$1.50 a day. And you get the rest of the internets knowledge included.

No hours of operation, no librarians giving you dirty looks

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

#154

Post by dredmorbius » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:17 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…

The distinction you'll find leads your 2nd paragraph: the study was retracted.

The climate denial movement never budges a nanometer on any of its points. The scientific movement admits its mistakes and errors.

And yes, there's dispute in small details of the matter. The grander narrative has been clear since the 19th century. No, not a typo. Not since the 20th, but the 19th.

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

#155

Post by DFHippie » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:18 PM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #134

DFHippie wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Individuals not agreeing with ecofascists also come to the point where they donate.

Suggests the OP thinks these are political agents that ordinary people encounter and have to deal with, not just the Christchurch terrorist. And the tone of that comment suggests the ecofascists are from the other end of the political spectrum -- note it's the people dealing with the ecofascists who "detonate".

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

#156

Post by huffmsa » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:19 PM UTC

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #101

huffmsa wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they were slapped with the "* denier" label of the time heretic and either executed, exiled, or put on house arrest for life by the "good" government scientists.

You do understand that what made them right was not the fact that they denied something, right?

That's not the point. The point is that just because "the majority of" thinks one thing,those who disagree shouldn't have the label of heretic branded to them and completely ignored.

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

#157

Post by ThomPete » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:20 PM UTC

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #132

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…

Can you mention a single scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change we dont know how to handle with todays technology let alone in 50 years time? I am not talking about speculated but demonstrates.

Thats what they mean.

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

#158

Post by pjkundert » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:21 PM UTC

"Denialism".

That's the end of the conversation then, I guess. To bad.

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

#159

Post by staktrace » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:22 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…

"Tenable for life" is not the same as "tenable for human life"

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

#160

Post by comicjk » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:28 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…

> Like all hypotheses, it cannot be proven true, only disproven by contradictory evidence.

This is true, but not helpful, because it's a framework that treats all probabilities except 0 and 1 as equivalently vague. Anthropogenic climate change > 1℃ is extremely likely, 99%+ probability. It could be wrong, but it's not useful skepticism to just say "it could be wrong" about everything. The IPCC is putting out good probabilistic forecasts. Scientists are doing the work of testing the hypothesis. As new evidence comes out, we should respond to it. In the present, we have to act using the probabilities we have.