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

Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978

thecompost.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 340 posts

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

#251

Post by robbiep »

whatshisface wrote: post #174
robbiep wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And the world will be a different place in another 50 years, but did the golden age that all our parents thought was coming in the 60s materialise to their expectations? let's temper ours lest we grow disappointed and jaded.

Change is slow when viewed in a small timescale, and massive when viewed on a large one. I hope we sort our shit out, and I will contribute to the best of my ability to bring this about if at all possible. But, you know, history.

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

#252

Post by giardini »

Gupie wrote: post #139
civility wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very reasonable position, and I won't argue with you there. Many times you need to make a decision with imperfect or incomplete information. However you go one step further and attack anyone who dares question that view, and you do it with the a sense of righteousness as though you did understand the topic and applied the scientific method to get there. That's just bullying, but you get away with it because…

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

Gupie says> "what is the rational for not going with the consensus of 97% of climate scientists?"

Simply that there is no such consensus - "'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong":

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-cl...

From the article:

"Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need...But it gets even worse. Because it turns out that 97% didn’t even say that..."

The Forbes article describes how the "97%" value was fabricated:

"Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t."

"The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested..."

Read it and weep (or laugh).

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

#254

Post by Sharlin »

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

The birth of the first Green movement in the 70s was very much revolutionary. The cultural memory of just how bad things used to be has unfortunately already faded, to the extent that reactionary forces are endeavoring to bring back the bad old times.

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

#255

Post by coldtea »

Mirioron wrote: post #99
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 find it difficult to imagine how solutions to climate change, that don't rely on improvement in technology, won't result in authoritarianism. I don't think that all the world governments will accept limitations on their people freely.

Or, inversely, that those seeking to expand their powers and enforce authoritarianism wont hijack the "climate change" as their excuse...

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

#256

Post by crimsonalucard »

reitanqild wrote: post #111
crimsonalucard wrote: post #20

What do we expect? If your purpose in life was found to be a total lie. Do you bury the truth and deny it to yourself and the world? Or do you commit suicide? Every fossil fuel company is going to lie their pants off because that's what you and all other humans would do if they got into the same situation.

> Every fossil fuel company is going to lie their pants off because that's what you and all other humans would do if they got into the same situation. Speak for yourself. 1. A good number of people actually have a spine. I'd not say the majority "is good && have a spine" but enough that you are lying. 2. It doesn't help at all to spread the lie that everyone else lying. Speaking as someone who has been embarassingly…

Speak for myself? I speak for humanity. And did you just call me a liar? Maybe a better way to disagree with me is to say you think I'm mistaken than to call me a liar.

What do you think religion is except for one big lie? Muslims and Christian's can't both be right, either one of them is right or neither of them. That puts a major portion of the world population gauraunteed to be delusional. Delusional behavior as a corporation like Exxon follows. This is logic you can't deny it.

You apparently are better than most humans since you brag about your ability to be embarrassingly honest.

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

#257

Post by whatshisface »

robbiep wrote: post #251
whatshisface wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And the world will be a different place in another 50 years, but did the golden age that all our parents thought was coming in the 60s materialise to their expectations? let's temper ours lest we grow disappointed and jaded. Change is slow when viewed in a small timescale, and massive when viewed on a large one. I hope we sort our shit out, and I will contribute to the best of my ability to bring this about if at all…

Aside from the 1950s equivalents of Ray Kurzweil, how many people back then really thought a golden age was on its way?

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

#258

Post by coldtea »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #105
Mirioron wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it difficult to imagine how solutions to climate change, that don't rely on improvement in technology, won't result in authoritarianism. I don't think that all the world governments will accept limitations on their people freely.

The clean air acts, the banning of freon and other CFCs, and other public health measures like treated water and ending leaded fuel required regulation not authoritarianism. All placed limitations on their people. Why would this be any different? We don't need to replace political choice, or freedoms with repression to bring in carbon taxes and start banning plastic, coal or gas.

>Why would this be any different?

Because nobody cares about "freon banning" with plenty of alternatives, or treated water, and leaded fuel had a long runway letting people the time to replace cars etc.

It's the actual "hard" bans and lifestyle change requiring laws that people would complain about.

And doubly so corporations and private interests making money off of them.

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

#259

Post by coldtea »

adrianN wrote: post #226
Mirioron wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You don't have to stop eating meat completely. It just becomes more expensive.

So that the masses can't have it, but anybody making over say $100K year (or $1M year) it's a non issue ("yeah, burger went from $5 to $20, still hardly a dent to my finances").

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

#260

Post by kaybe »

akvadrako wrote: post #138
logjammin wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Example of investigators whose work has suffered for fear of being labeled a heretic?

One of the more famous cases recently was Peter Ridd. He just won a court case against his university after being sacked for questioning the climate consensus.

He said the Great Barrier reef will profit from climate change and not die off because of it, is that the issue you mean?

Sooo - if it's true, great, one problem less! Regardless, there are still many other problems caused by climate change that he did not dispute and that we still have to fight. So the best course forward is still to reduce emissions, and keep an eye on the reef to see what's true.

---

Googling around I found the statement that

“Dr Ridd was not sacked because of his scientific views. Dr Ridd was never gagged or silenced about his scientific views, a matter which was admitted during the court hearing.” [0]

(But if that's true or not.. hard to say from here. The court recordings would have evidence.)

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/16/james-co...

Post reply on HN