Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 174 posts

Re: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

#11

Post by necrotic_comp »

whatever1 wrote: post #5

I don’t understand what was the expectation. For Big Oil to start campaigning against their own product? We have legislative bodies that we literally elect and pay to do this job. Let’s stop the hypocrisy and look ourselves in the mirror.

The expectation is that they would take the long view and start investing in alternatives that pay more instead of burning the planet to the ground.

Re: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

#12

Post by happytoexplain »

manv1 wrote: post #8

[flagged]

I agree it's overused, but it might be early to jump on the reporter/journalist hate train on this particular issue, since it's extremely common for their critics to describe their reporting as "breathless", which is a nearly identical exaggeration.

Re: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

#14

Post by mschuster91 »

Surprise, surprise. And yet, Big Oil continued to launch campaigns designed to deflect responsibility from companies and governments away to individual consumers, like BP's "carbon footprint" [1].

When will those responsible be held accountable for helping to advance the destruction of climate and the immense loss of life and property that climate change has brought?

How can we explain to our children and grandchildren why we did nothing to hold them accountable?

[1] https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sh...

Re: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

#15

Post by danuker »

whatever1 wrote: post #9
TinyRick wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is that Big Oil pays those politicians more.

And all of the country elected to keep them in power

Here're the most-greased top 20.

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&cy...

Re: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

#16

Post by ktyckgch »

happytoexplain wrote: post #12
manv1 wrote: post #8

[flagged]

I agree it's overused, but it might be early to jump on the reporter/journalist hate train on this particular issue, since it's extremely common for their critics to describe their reporting as "breathless", which is a nearly identical exaggeration.

In this case the word is a direct quote from Geoffrey Supran. While the headline writer chose to emphasise it, the writer definitely didn't find it in a thesaurus.

Re: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

#17

Post by MonkeyMalarky »

manv1 wrote: post #8

[flagged]

Sure after looking at data, I've lost my breath and felt my heart clench inside my chest like death itself reached in and grabbed hold. Mind you it wasn't climate data and more like "I've trashed the DB in prod" sort of thing.

Re: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

#19

Post by TinyRick »

whatever1 wrote: post #9
TinyRick wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is that Big Oil pays those politicians more.

And all of the country elected to keep them in power

The voters in the 70s and 80s did, sure. But as this article explains, those voters were withheld crucial information that could have informed their voting choices.

2010 was the first election I was eligible to vote in, and in the past decade+ I (and many others) have not voted for pro-oil/coal/fracking/etc candidates. Yet we're the ones that are (and will continue to) live with the consequences of Big Oil's actions from decades ago.

Re: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

#20

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #4
thatguy0900 wrote: post #3

In any just world the company would be dissolved and all of its resources taken and put towards fixing the problems it intentionally created, and the people that knew about this be held personally liable.

> the company would be dissolved and all of its resources taken and put towards fixing the problems it intentionally created, and the people that knew about this be held personally liable I get the second part. But what's the utility of the first over a fine? Are you suggesting nationalizing Exxon? Or liquidating it?

Without defending their wording, I think the absolute best case for nationalizing a firm is one where the industry is based off of natural resources, vital to the public in the short term, and detrimental to the public in the long term.
Post reply on HN