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

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

#181

Post by gdubs » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 5:14 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…

That’s a bit like arguing that Inteligent Design is a valid form of scientific discourse.

Just because Einstein unseated Newton, apples didn’t stop falling from trees. Similarly, if climate science evolves it’s pretty unlikely at this point that we’ll find that human generated CO2 isn’t warming the planet — the macro effects are pretty well understood at this point.

Let’s not conflate science with bad-faith denialism.

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

#182

Post by ianai » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 5:16 PM UTC

dd36 wrote: post #143

gdhbcc wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The Uninhabitable Earth By David Wallace-Wells is my source for this. He’s got scientific references for what I wrote.

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

#183

Post by makomk » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #154

makomk wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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The distinction you'll find leads your 2nd paragraph: the study was retracted .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

I'm pretty sure they have budged on some of their points, and that folks have taken this as proof they admit they're entirely wrong, but putting that aside for a moment...

Suppose for a moment that the scientists hadn't budged. That they'd listened to all the folks who say that climate change deniers are simply liars who aren't worth listening to and not even bothered to look at their complaints. Who would you believe - the Nature-published scientists or the evil climate denial movement? Because unless you'd be willing to believe the deniers over the mainstream scientific community, it seems like we're in unfalsifiable territory here, where if the mainstream scientists admit they're wrong it proves they're right, and if they don't it also proves they're right.

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

#184

Post by SomeOtherThrow » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

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…

This is a critical component of manufacturing consent.

It ain’t just the right, the center have their own propaganda-like think tanks that work closely with the DNC.

But, we are in a post-fact era. Expect this to get much worse.

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

#185

Post by mindslight » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

ykevinator wrote: post #59

KevinEldon wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fossil fuel companies purchase politicians on both sides of the isle. Several prominent democrats, including former and current Democrat presidential candidates have ties with fossil fuel companies. Your argument is weakened by focusing on one political party.

Only one side acknowledges the existence of a problem.

... thus making for the simulation of choice.

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

#186

Post by refurb » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 5:18 PM UTC

staktrace wrote: post #159

rayiner wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

Of all life, humans are probably the most adaptable.

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

#187

Post by tzs » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

bluejekyll wrote: post #175

rayiner wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You’re using ban like this was something about the government silencing someone, definitely a free speech issue. But that case was about campaign finance and the ability to control how much money, spending, etc., could be used in an election. You’re being disingenuous to say the least. Edit: btw I am not a lawyer, and so this is of course my lay persons opinion.

> You’re using ban like this was something about the government silencing someone, definitely a free speech issue.

It was.

> But that case was about campaign finance and the ability to control how much money, spending, etc., could be used in an election.

It wasn't.

The law in question in CU banned corporations (including non-profit corporations) and unions from paying for any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentions a candidate within 60 days of a general election of 30 days of a primary.

A non-profit wanted to air a film critical of a candidate. They were prohibited by that law from buying air time to show to their film, or even from buying ads advertising the availability of the film. They sued to overturn the law.

The case did not involve nor did the ruling change the law on campaign finance.

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

#188

Post by makomk » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 5:22 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…

I don't think even RCP8.5 would be anywhere near enough to hit 8°C warming by 2100 anyway. Pretty sure that's way outside the range of all plausible models.

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

#189

Post by cagenut » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 5:25 PM UTC

whydoyoucare wrote: post #179

To me science is never settled, and anyone who claims climate crisis is pretty much definite has an incentive that has other hidden angles than we are led to believe. This is not a denial position, but is largely characterised so. Nothing in science is black-and-white, there are infinite shades of gray in between. Having said that, Freeman Dyson also seems to share this opinion, and I think it carries some weight: ht…

This is an almost perfectly textbook example of how to sew FUD to muddle a debate. Fortunately we seem to have turned a cultural corner in the last few months, so you're getting heavily downvoted, but even just a year ago this would have worked.

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

#190

Post by o_p » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 5:26 PM UTC

Lets talk about the money behind climate change too, I bet theres a lot of "clean" energy patents lying around that with some new regulations and taxes, would worth billons.