Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978 • Hacker News Board

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#151

Post by crispinb » Thu, May 23, 2019, 10:31 AM UTC

solarkraft wrote: post #145

solarkraft wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe we are on a verge of Millenial movement of some sort that will make a matter of enviroment a quasi religion of sorts. That would change the attitudes. It's happening. And I'm really happy about it.

I'd like to add, in case you don't know what I'm refering to: There is a large movement widely called "Fridays for Future" going on lots of european cities (large and small) in which students will go on a school strike to demonstrate for sensible climate policy.

Sure, and there's the Extinction Rebellion stuff in the UK. Here in Australia we're kind of complacent/lazy, not often giving a stuff about anything except sports, celebrities, and limitless acquisition of consumer crap. But there is a bit of the school strike stuff happening.

It's all a bit marginal though, isn't it?

People might object to the 'quasi religious' aspect of what you're talking about. I'd make the point though that any culture which acknowledges even minimally the true nature of the living planet that is our home would appear mystical or religious to the deathly bloodless denatured worldview that so ruthlessly holds power now. The latter is either going to give way to something that is a better fit for physical reality, or it will destroy itself by soiling its own nest, largely in hapless ignorance regarding what's at stake.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#152

Post by Gupie » Thu, May 23, 2019, 10:41 AM UTC

civility wrote: post #148

Gupie wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely if you are not a climate scientist what is the rational for not going with the consensus of 97% of climate scientists?

Because there isn't any reason for me to jump to a conclusion. For other reasons, I already have a carbon footprint and voting record almost anyone in that consensus would approve of. Is it really important that I "believe" all the things people are afraid of? I'm pretty content to leave some topics unresolved until I get more information.

I am not a fan of "believe" or dogma of any kind myself. I tend to go on likelihood. I ask myself is it more likely that the 97% are correct or the 3%?

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#153

Post by crottypeter » Thu, May 23, 2019, 10:42 AM UTC

crispinb wrote: post #109

jokoon wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one way to look at it. My view is that climate change is a world problem. Governments will not oblige their citizens to make steps on their consumption if it means reducing their comfort and their economic power. Steps should be taken in advance so that once green deals are put in place, countries can implement those effortlessly. We often hear that some countries don't make enough efforts, but 1. Other count…

I don't know about the solutions - my view is that the die is cast. > My view is that climate change is a world problem That's undoubtedly true, and the fossil fuel companies clearly acknowledge this - their 30 year anti-science propaganda campaigns have been waged across the world.

>30 year

40 year

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#154

Post by Gupie » Thu, May 23, 2019, 10:43 AM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #147

Gupie wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely if you are not a climate scientist what is the rational for not going with the consensus of 97% of climate scientists?

Because that consensus is trivial. Probably 100% agree that the climate is changing which is the question people agreed on. Even so-called skeptics agree on that. It's all the other questions that have much more uncertainty and less consensus. The use of that number is the kind of outright political manipulation that's so prevalent in this debate. Keep in mind we aren't even talking about scientifically demonstrated…

>> In 10 years the climate catastrophim we see today will be laughed at. Just wait and se.

That is very unlikely.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#155

Post by civility » Thu, May 23, 2019, 10:44 AM UTC

agent008t wrote: post #142

civility wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and have a pro-economic growth bias Sarcasm? Forgive me, but it's honestly tough to tell. Amusingly, I think anyone who can make a model of the climate which can predict 100 years into the future really should make a model of the stock market a modest 1 year into the future instead. Having done so, they could make enough money to buy whatever technological or political change they think would solve the climate prob…

No - I think having a pro-economic growth bias would be helpful, because they would likely have a higher hurdle for being convinced that we may indeed need to sacrifice economic growth to change the course of humanity's future for the better. If they do their research and are convinced, it would mean a lot more to me than if someone who supported the conclusions of environmentalists' policies apriori reaches the same…

> No - I think having a pro-economic growth bias would be helpful, [...]

I like how that sets the bar higher for extraordinary claims and extraordinary proof. Although honestly, I'll always be skeptical about extrapolation and predicting the future more than a few cycles out.

> If there is any such bias among climate scientists [...]

I agree. It seems fair to ask who goes into and gets accepted as a PhD in that field. It's pretty easy to imagine there could be a selection bias, and "science advances one funeral at a time".

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#156

Post by civility » Thu, May 23, 2019, 10:53 AM UTC

Gupie wrote: post #152

civility wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there isn't any reason for me to jump to a conclusion. For other reasons, I already have a carbon footprint and voting record almost anyone in that consensus would approve of. Is it really important that I "believe" all the things people are afraid of? I'm pretty content to leave some topics unresolved until I get more information.

I am not a fan of "believe" or dogma of any kind myself. I tend to go on likelihood. I ask myself is it more likely that the 97% are correct or the 3%?

I think Bayes theorem might be worthwhile here. Besides, going with the majority or authority as a principal is almost the definition of dogma. That's not likelihood in any rigorous sense.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#157

Post by robbiep » Thu, May 23, 2019, 10:57 AM UTC

solarkraft wrote: post #120

chewz wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Governments will not oblige their citizens to make steps on their consumption if it means reducing their comfort and their economic power. Here is the catch - efforts to reduce overconsumption mean slowing economy and lower tax base. No goverment can afford that. > Imagine riots because people want to keep using their cars and trade goods that have become illegal, or vendettas against people who emit co2. I believe…

> I believe we are on a verge of Millenial movement of some sort that will make a matter of enviroment a quasi religion of sorts. That would change the attitudes. It's happening. And I'm really happy about it.

So did everyone in the 60s and at other periods. The world changes, but it’s no revolution. I’ll believe it when I see it, I remain cautiously optimistic but have my doubts as to whether the ‘millennials’ will be able to pry themselves away from their self interest for long enough

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#158

Post by anthuman » Thu, May 23, 2019, 11:15 AM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #86

modzu wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there has been plenty of genuine scepticism from within the scientific community (as there should be). what has happened is that it has become politicized such that the science is suffering for fear of being labeled a heretic. much of the research is published via the intergovernmental panel on climate change; well it's right there in the title. none of this is to say that there aren't also entities pushing propagand…

Unless you literally don't believe the raw numbers coming from sensors all over the world there is no room for doubting that the climate is changing. There can, and has been, plenty of discussion as to the reasons, but for at least thirty years now the consensus has been that human activity is responsible for the vast majority of the effects we've seen.

The climate has always been changing. That's the problem. We have been in a "long trend" global warming period for at least 20,000 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum

Much of the world was under ice 20K years ago. And the earth has generally warmed since then and melted much of the ice ( with occasional refreezes ).

And the "consensus" that human activity is responsible is utter nonsense. Feel free to research where the "consensus" came from. Also, whenever "science" relies on "consensus", you have to start wondering because real science doesn't rely on consensus - it relies on hypothesis and experimentation. The speed of light isn't derived from "consensus" but rather experiments. Science isn't politics, people don't vote for what the facts of science are.

You talk of 30 years of consensus. Do you know what the consensus was before the consensus on global warming? We had 30 years of consensus on global cooling. And before then we had decades of consensus of malthusian collapse. And before then consensus on social darwinism. Strange how all these "consensus" driven science has been debunked as pseudoscientific nonsense.

We are in many millenia long global warming period. This trend started long before humans started using oil. Thinking humans are responsible for global warming is like thinking humans are responsible for the rise and decline of tides because we drink water.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#159

Post by solarkraft » Thu, May 23, 2019, 11:21 AM UTC

crispinb wrote: post #151

solarkraft wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to add, in case you don't know what I'm refering to: There is a large movement widely called "Fridays for Future" going on lots of european cities (large and small) in which students will go on a school strike to demonstrate for sensible climate policy.

Sure, and there's the Extinction Rebellion stuff in the UK. Here in Australia we're kind of complacent/lazy, not often giving a stuff about anything except sports, celebrities, and limitless acquisition of consumer crap. But there is a bit of the school strike stuff happening. It's all a bit marginal though, isn't it? People might object to the 'quasi religious' aspect of what you're talking about. I'd make the point…

I can only speak out of my bubble here, but I believe the Fridays for Future movement and resistance against the copyright reform really shook the German youth and the whole country as a consequence.

I have a feeling things are actually moving: A few days ago a mid-sized German YouTuber has published a 1 hour long video harshly criticizing the major German party CDU, not for its support of the copyright reform, but largely on economic and ecologic grounds. Everyone, from younger friends to older coworkers are talking about it, sharing how far they have watched it so far, pledging to watch it ...

I don't think it would have spread this rapidly and far (it was at 2.4M views the last time I checked) without the already tense climate.

Maybe this movement is not a "quasi-religion" (though it might become so), but environment-politics are finally a major, widely discussed point.

Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

#160

Post by Gravityloss » Thu, May 23, 2019, 11:23 AM UTC

js8 wrote: post #112

jokoon wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one way to look at it. My view is that climate change is a world problem. Governments will not oblige their citizens to make steps on their consumption if it means reducing their comfort and their economic power. Steps should be taken in advance so that once green deals are put in place, countries can implement those effortlessly. We often hear that some countries don't make enough efforts, but 1. Other count…

> Governments will not oblige their citizens to make steps on their consumption if it means reducing their comfort It's interesting though that they will oblige them to wars. This is generally not a true statement. Government is not entirely segregated from the citizenry. It is, in some form, representation of society (even in a dictatorship).

If half of the media tells it's a hoax, why would the population want to endure inconvenience for it.

Denialism has a real effect.