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

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

#161

Post by dwaltrip » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:29 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #157

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

When flat-out denial slowly morphs into "maybe it isn't a huge deal", one must question if that is actually what they mean.

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

#162

Post by bluejekyll » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:31 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

Yes. The Supreme Court has two very memorable recent decisions that cause us to question the viability of our (2 party) democracy.

1) Bush v. Gore 2000: only time the court ever issued a decision, knowing that it was totally vaporous, and said this should not be used as future precedent. The entire point of the court is to set precedent.

2) Citizens United: continuing the notion that companies deserve as much protection as people.

Pair those together and it becomes hard to claim that the US is a democracy at all. The court has some other notoriously bad decisions, but I hope they eventually come down on the side of democracy in regards to gerrymandering, despite the recent rulings.

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

#163

Post by gus_massa » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:32 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…

> Stating that the risk of climate change is overstated is denying the risk of climate change.

So you classify any form of dissent as "denying"?

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

#164

Post by akvadrako » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:33 PM UTC

kaybe wrote: post #100

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.

That they’re actually fanatics?

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

#165

Post by anovikov » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:34 PM UTC

Why not take a simplified, but beneficial view of climate change which will work well for both conservatives and liberals alike?

"It is likely that we are experiencing some global warming which is likely to get worse in the future, and it is likely to be man-made by emitting some greenhouse gases, mainly CO2 and methane, into the atmosphere, and if so we should curb these emissions to avoid some bad long term consequences, but even if that is a mistake, it is a good idea to scare people with because curbing these emissions also makes life of those damn Commies, that pesky Middle East, and many other sthole countries that hate us, worse, and limit their resources which they use to harm us, so good idea to do even the theory behind it proves wrong. Those liberals aren't going to go for that to fight Commies, but they will if you scare them with some made up stuff like dying corals or flooding islands, well enough".

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

#166

Post by ThomPete » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:34 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 is a destinct possibility of an astroid hitting earth wiping out most humans. Yet we still dont monitor 100% and put all our effort into making sure that doesent happen. If you think thats a tenable position you are on the denier side.

Seems to be a very counterproductive way of discussing this.

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

#167

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:35 PM UTC

huffmsa wrote: post #156

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Correct. But those who just talk bullshit should still be ignored.

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

#168

Post by danharaj » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:38 PM UTC

gus_massa wrote: post #163

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> Stating that the risk of climate change is overstated is denying the risk of climate change. So you classify any form of dissent as "denying"?

That's not what they said, but also, what is your point?

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

#169

Post by rayiner » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:40 PM UTC

gjm11 wrote: post #146

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.herita…

Regarding your earlier citations, the consensus for anthropogenic climate change is much more recent than you seem to assume. The IPCC was not formed until 1988. Even as of the 1995 report, the conclusions regarding the anthropogenic nature of observed warming was tepid:

> An introductory preface to the SAR written by IPCC chairman Bolin and his co-chairs John T. Houghton and L. Gylvan Meira Filho highlighted "that observations suggest 'a discernible human influence on global climate', one of the key findings of this report, adds an important new dimension to discussion of the climate issue."[12]

It wasn’t until 2001 that IPCC took a definitive position that human influence would be the dominant effect on warming going forward: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/07/WG1_TAR_SPM.... (pages 9-11). In that same report, the IPCC took a much milder view on whether human influence had been the dominant contributor to date. They assert that a human “signal” is detectable, but do not assert that the warming to date had primarily resulted from human activity. They also note no impact on, for example, the extent of sea ice. The 2001 Heritage article you posted is probably an optimistic reading of the 2001 IPCC report, but not an unreasonable one.

Of course they’re not going to be out front embracing the impact of climate change. But being slow to accept the evidence as it rolls in is not denialism.

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

#170

Post by rayiner » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:43 PM UTC

bluejekyll wrote: post #162

specialist wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes. The Supreme Court has two very memorable recent decisions that cause us to question the viability of our (2 party) democracy. 1) Bush v. Gore 2000: only time the court ever issued a decision, knowing that it was totally vaporous, and said this should not be used as future precedent. The entire point of the court is to set precedent. 2) Citizens United: continuing the notion that companies deserve as much protect…

You understand that a contrary ruling on Citizens United would also allow the government to shut down numerous organizations advocating for addressing climate change? If the government can ban a political movie about Hilary Clinton (which is what was at issue in Citizens United), it can ban a political movie about Trump’s effect on climate change.