Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by sokoloff » Sat, Jan 14, 2023, 8:30 PM UTC

lasfter wrote: post #167

sokoloff wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You speak as if people have always known fossil fuels cause climate change The knowledge of CO2 (and water vapor) acting as an insulating blanket and having a warming effect on the planet was known years before the very first oil well was drilled and over a dozen years before Standard Oil (which eventually became Exxon and later ExxonMobil) was even founded. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/#:~:text=Eunice%20Foote…

This discussion is spiralling. It feels like you attack tiny parts of my comments while ignoring the broader point, and I don't really know if you're commenting in good faith. You're telling me people in power in 1923 knew that human oil consumption was causing climate change that would be detrimental to human life? If you asked Congress today many wouldn't agree with you, and I'm sure some of them sincerely believe…

> My original argument was that this is evil and every individual in charge of suppressing this information and continuing to advocate for fossil fuel use deserves punishment. Do you agree?

Based on everything I know, I vehemently disagree. We don't punish "evil"; we punish law-breaking; this is a very good thing for individuals and companies in a free society to be able to rely upon.

We have a justice system based on laws, not (directly*) on morality. This is important, especially given the propensity for morality to vary per person and to shift and evolve in its interpretation and for similar actions by different people, or similar actions by the same people at different times, to be morally judged differently.

If it was legal for Exxon to not share their proprietary knowledge (that there was no legal obligation for them to publish their knowledge), there's no legal basis for punishment. I believe that's the exact situation that we're in, which is why there are outrage articles published (moral judgments) but not indictments (prelude to legal judgments).

I believe that's responsive to your major point.

On your more minor point:

> You're telling me people in power in 1923 knew that human oil consumption was causing climate change that would be detrimental to human life?

I believe that that knowledge was available within the body of scientific knowledge, based on the evidence I provided above. I can't prove one way or the other, therefore will not surmise, what "people in power" nor voters did or didn't know, on average, in 1923.

* Our laws are loosely based upon on our morality, but there's a critically important level of indirection and specificity that precludes persecution of people based on an implied moral proscription rather than a codified legal proscription.

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

#172

Post by cercatrova » Sat, Jan 14, 2023, 8:38 PM UTC

dawdaway wrote: post #170

satvikpendem wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why are you so willing to absolve the leaders of their responsibility to behave within a societally understood moral compass? And I refer you to my first sentence in my reply. > How does boot polish taste? I see, this is how I can tell you are not asking in good faith. Goodbye, new account made just 13 days ago.

Demonstrating that I must behave according to the moral compass you believe those with extraordinary power are exempt from also following. Fitting.

Strange response, looks like the parent said (a few times even) they're not exempt morally but seems like you're still trying to insinuate that the parent thinks they are.

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

#173

Post by dawdaway » Sat, Jan 14, 2023, 10:15 PM UTC

cercatrova wrote: post #172

dawdaway wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Demonstrating that I must behave according to the moral compass you believe those with extraordinary power are exempt from also following. Fitting.

Strange response, looks like the parent said (a few times even) they're not exempt morally but seems like you're still trying to insinuate that the parent thinks they are.

Please quote me the sentences where the parent says they are not morally exempt.

>"Clearly?" Why? How is it clear at all? If there are no consequences or benefits for doing so (and indeed, a highly beneficial outcome by not doing so), why should they?

Quite obviously implies that corporations are justified in optimizing for their own benefit without factoring morality.

The anecdote provided about Larry Ellison has the same implication.

The parent saying an approximation of "I'm just explaining how the world works" is not only incorrect, patronizing and overly general but also implies that corporations are just a force of nature rather than a group of people who should be held responsible for the immorality of their decisions.

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

#174

Post by lasfter » Sat, Jan 14, 2023, 10:46 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #171

lasfter wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This discussion is spiralling. It feels like you attack tiny parts of my comments while ignoring the broader point, and I don't really know if you're commenting in good faith. You're telling me people in power in 1923 knew that human oil consumption was causing climate change that would be detrimental to human life? If you asked Congress today many wouldn't agree with you, and I'm sure some of them sincerely believe…

> My original argument was that this is evil and every individual in charge of suppressing this information and continuing to advocate for fossil fuel use deserves punishment. Do you agree? Based on everything I know, I vehemently disagree. We don't punish "evil"; we punish law-breaking; this is a very good thing for individuals and companies in a free society to be able to rely upon. We have a justice system based o…

> I believe that's responsive to your major point

Not really, because while I am talking about how things ought to be, you are talking about how things are. Once again my point: this was evil and the people responsible deserve punishment. Saying they did nothing illegal is irrelevant since, as you say, laws and morality are not equivalent. If you don't believe evil should be punished, then you believe old laws should never change and new ones shouldn't be created. As you say, morality changes, so then why would laws remain unchangeable? How can we ever codify moral standards when people get more upset at outrage than at the immoral act?

There's no legal culpability in this case, but if society follows your lead there wouldn't be legal culpability in any future cases either. Next time an article reveals Johnson & Johnson has been knowingly putting poison in its baby powder or something like that, will you once more argue against the outrage and claim there's no legal culpability and the consumers could have been testing their baby powder, so really it's their fault?

> available within the body of scientific knowledge, based on the evidence I provided

Not really, the evidence you provided only said people knew CO2 could heat the world, but nothing about its effects on mankind (which Exxon did know about, per the previous leaks). And as you admit, you can't know if any voter or policy-maker actually knew. So how are we responsible for allowing Exxon's actions again?

I'm finished with this discussion, your nihilism is exhausting.