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

#171

Post by acqq » Thu, May 23, 2019, 11:45 AM UTC

civility wrote: post #136

acqq wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know a fair amount about programming, math, and simulations, and I don't trust anyone who says they can predict a chaotic system 50-100 years into the future. Then you obviously don't know basic physics. The average temperature is much easier to predict (if some worse feedback doesn't get involved to make the development even worse, that is) than the microscopic "chaotic movements." I rather believe that what's b…

> Then you obviously don't know basic physics. Ugh, if you're going to just attack me, why not jump to the big guns and call me a shill for the oil company or some other cliche. > The average temperature is much easier to predict If you do enough averaging over a long enough period, this can be true. I mean, we can all tell the average position of a double pendulum. I'm guessing you think 1, 10, or 100 years is enoug…

> Try looking at the last 400,000 years and tell me how well you can predict those swings.

Actually if we had so reliable measurements for that period like we do for last hundred years, it would not be hard.

Your arguments have no basis, just an attempt to distract from the facts by grasping for what is not being discussed (e.g. 400 thousand years precise inference). Given the information we do have we have very good understanding of the relevant phenomena.

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

#172

Post by ThomPete » Thu, May 23, 2019, 11:52 AM UTC

Gravityloss wrote: post #160

js8 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Half of the media don't. Most of the media live from the climate catastrophe rhetoric

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

#173

Post by lm28469 » Thu, May 23, 2019, 11:54 AM UTC

civility wrote: post #96

adrianN wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Following the consensus is a fine choice if you're trying not to get lynched by the mob, but it really has very little to do with science. The scientific method does not say, "get everyone you think is smart to vote on it, if they all agree, it must be true". I really wish lay people would quit turning science into a religion and scientists into priests.

> Following the consensus is a fine choice if you're trying not to get lynched by the mob, but it really has very little to do with science.

As opposed to ? Being so skeptic that you deny everything you don't personally believe in no matter the amount of proof your are given ?

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

#174

Post by whatshisface » Thu, May 23, 2019, 11:55 AM UTC

robbiep wrote: post #157

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.

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

Leaded gasoline, rivers that you can light on fire with a match, and chlorofluorocarbons are all things that were around America in 1960.

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

#175

Post by ThomPete » Thu, May 23, 2019, 11:58 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 consensus is not science.

There is no accurate number not even a range which can be scientifically demonstrated.

The data is not showing what you think it is and it's not the data you are getting served. You are getting served interpretation of that data which is very very very different.

The reality is this:

Temperature increased 0.5 degree celcius from late 1800's to 1950 before there were any significant CO2 emissions. Then it took a break and continued with about the same up until today.

How much of those last 0.5-0.6 are caused by humans?

That would be science. What we have today is mostly political and ideological and only a fraction of it is actually scientific by any reasonable interpretation of that word.

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

#176

Post by maxlybbert » Thu, May 23, 2019, 12:04 PM UTC

Gupie wrote: post #154

ThomPete wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I remember science bloggers complaining that the recent IPCC report didn’t predict enough doom and gloom to get political results.

They may well be right, but they weren’t saying that they had reason to believe the IPCC had understated the influence carbon dioxide, methane, or some other gas has on the climate, or that predicted emissions where wrong, etc. They were complaining that the report didn’t have enough scare mongering. That’s not science, and it could easily lead to a big overcorrection in a few years.

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

#177

Post by Mirioron » Thu, May 23, 2019, 12:07 PM UTC

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #121

Mirioron wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because those limitations are minor compared to "eat less meat", "don't drive a car" and "food will be more expensive in general". These are going to be very tough sells among populations that are not rich. Look at the Yellow Vests in France.

Goods were more expensive in general when a sales tax or VAT was brought in. Without riots or oppressive regime. If taxes and regulation penalise meat, people will buy less meat - just as taxes and regulation have changed the town landscape from cigarette butts everywhere, to remarkably infrequent. When I was at school pretty much everyone smoked. Now it's really uncommon to see a smoker. Again, there were no riots o…

None of those things are even remotely comparable to eating meat. Meat is the easiest way to have a balanced diet in terms of nutrition. When you increase the price then people will simply pay more. Besides, VAT and other such taxes are only around 20%. You need far more than that. Look at the Yellow Vests if you want to see what happens when prices go too high. We even have instances of political parties being voted out because they increased alcohol taxes too much. What do you think would happen with meat?

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

#178

Post by maxlybbert » Thu, May 23, 2019, 12:09 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #95

modzu wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freeman Dyson

He's a physicists. Why would he have any idea about climate? He's just a person with an opinion not a dissenting scientist. And if his work suffered as a result of voicing such opinion then it was only to be expected. If you voice stupid opinion regarding domain you know almost nothing about and prop it up with your work reputation it's only fair if that reputation takes a hit.

The “97% consensus” number is based on surveys of scientists in general, not just climate scientists. Including scientists when they agree with a position, but not when they disagree (because they aren’t real climate experts) is a very strange debate tactic.

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

#179

Post by maxlybbert » Thu, May 23, 2019, 12:17 PM UTC

Fricken wrote: post #40

pier25 wrote: post #22

It's terrible to think that maybe if Exxon and others didn't invest in lobbying and disinformation campaigns against climate change maybe humanity would have started acting 30 years earlier. It's 2019 and humanity is barely starting to think about acting. Global CO2 emissions keep growing as if we were in "business as usual". Humanity needs to realize the magnitude of the problem. Climate change is, by far, the bigge…

We've known about the greenhouse effect and it's threat potential for nearly 2 centuries. Exxon just helped add to a growing body of evidence that we ignore. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

I remember articles in “Scholastic” and the “Weekly Reader” when I was in elementary school (1980s) that said at the time scientists were worried about a 1°-2°C increase in temperature over a 50-100 year period. I’m sure that’s the same information Exxon had in the ‘70s.

Nowadays the predictions are much higher, because scientists started asking “if the oceans get warmer, what changes will that cause, and how will those changes affect the temperature?” In 1970, Exxon wasn’t suppressing research on whether warmer oceans mean more water vapor in the air, more carbon dioxide outgassing from the oceans, etc. They were only asking “should we really make drastic changes to head off a 1°-2°C temperature change that may not happen for a century? Is there a reason to believe that nothing will change in that time to make the prediction irrelevant?”

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

#180

Post by justin66 » Thu, May 23, 2019, 12:22 PM UTC

karl11 wrote: post #45

murat124 wrote: post #43

Former Exxon CEO and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson famously stated in 2013 during a meeting with Exxonmobil shareholders: "What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers"[1]. He explained, "As a species that’s why we’re all still here: we have spent our entire existence adapting. So we will adapt to this. It’s an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions." The idea that the humans will s…

Fortunately for the rest of us, that optimism has worked pretty well for thousands of years now. Besides, if you really believe we're doomed, what difference does it make to you what anyone thinks about anything?

> Besides, if you really believe we're doomed, what difference does it make to you what anyone thinks about anything?

If you believe you're probably doomed because of what a large number of your most idiotic compatriots believe, what other people think is of great interest.