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

301–310 of 340 posts

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

#301

Post by scotty79 »

modzu wrote: post #297
scotty79 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything in existence is a physical phenomenon. That doesn't mean physicists have authority on everything. You might as well consider every philosopher an authority on everything because every problem ever solved was solved by thinking and that's what philosophers do. While in reality philosophers are only authorities on (the history of?) philosophy.

that's too harsh. philsophers are experts at a particular way of thinking: logic. it is surprisingly powerful for clarifying ideas and advancing knowledge, in much the same way as mathematics or the scientific method are. we would not say mathematicians are only experts on "numbers"

Logic is actually part of math. There are even few different logics math worked out.

Some philosophers follow logic but apply it to unanswerable questions. Some can't even do the logic part rigorously enough. Personally I have no respect for this field of culture and humans that pursue it. All of them are not even wrong.

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

#302

Post by sosborn »

namarie wrote: post #71
sosborn wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think humans will have much trouble adapting. Cities will move to accommodate the rising sea, we will move on to other food sources as the need arises, and life for us will go on. It's the other species – the ones that had no hand in this – that I worry and feel regret about.

And where are those food sources coming from? As good farmland becomes too hot and the colder regions that warm up don't usually have good soil... And sure, "cities will move" - so much political chaos happening on Europe just because of a million refugees - now imagine 50 times more coming to northern europe just from southern europe. Similar things happening all over the world. What fun!

Roaches will be along forever and are a viable food source.

I never said it would be fun, I said we would survive as a species.

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

#303

Post by jacobush »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #276
jacobush wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and 𝙀𝙭𝙭𝙤𝙣. Those are the nations of the world today." The Network (1976) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9XeyBd_IuA

It's interesting how much has changed since that movie came out. What was then shocking, now is mundane. Watching it now it's hard to see what the fuss was about. We've just all gotten used to it.

I know. I thought the same when watching it the last time. What struck me is we are still yelling (on the keyboard) to our 21 inch screens...

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

#304

Post by inflatableDodo »

jacobush wrote: post #237
crispinb wrote: post #5

Not news of course, but worth restating. Credulous 'scepticism' about the fundamentals of the climate collapse threat has been largely driven by corporate propaganda campaigns. Those campaigns were themselves constructed by people who weren't 'sceptics' -- they believed AGM was happening -- but considered their short-term profitability more important. Climate collapse 'sceptics' were nearly all gulls.

"You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and 𝙀𝙭𝙭𝙤𝙣. Those are the nations of the world today." The Network (1976) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9XeyBd_IuA

Top 100 Corporate and National economies, by revenue - https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/r...

edit - there was a World Bank blog post about this, but it has mysteriously disappeared.

https://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/miga/world-s-top-10...

here's google's cached version -

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Qt-r1E...

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

#306

Post by bumby »

wang_li wrote: post #299
bumby wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Opinions on climate change are irrelevant to my proposal How would such a proposal be enacted to begin with? My comment was that for a proposal like that to be passed initially, it would almost certainly need the support of a politician's respective constituents. Anything else would be political suicide and have slim-to-no chance of even getting debated. Blame it on lobbying, or career politicians, or whatever else…

I was just responding to the proposal put forward upstream with a number of points enumerated. Things can be dictatorial but fair. And realistically I think most western countries can maintain their current standard of living while reducing emmisssions, as I too believe we are capable of solutions. It doesn't mean sacrifice if carbon became part of the economy. Honestly it could be the unit of exchange if we chose to…

> Things can be dictatorial but fair.

So who gets to choose? One person's benevolent dictator is another person's despot.

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

#307

Post by crispinb »

mythrwy wrote: post #249
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'm not happy about it. Replacing one faith based authoritarian system with another isn't really a leap forward.

Consumer-fundamentalism is the most dangerous faith-based authoritarian system the world has yet seen.

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

#308

Post by specialist »

ThomPete wrote: post #265
specialist wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm willing to risk removing the subsidies for carbon. Then let the Freedom Markets™ decide which sources of energy are better. Economically.

Me too. Wind and solar constitute less than 1% of world energy consumption and doesn't have all the other properties and uses that makes oil such a fundamental and necessary ingredient for modern living. Hopefully overtime we will find something that's better, for now it's hard to find as amazing and flexible a resource as oil. Nuclear would probably win out, then oil and coal

I like this particular comment because you've stated what you're for, versus what you're against.

There is a lot of daylight between our respective positions. I don't agree with most of your assumptions, or statements of fact. So of course I don't agree with your conclusions. Alas, our realities are so far apart, there's zero profit in trying to find common ground.

I do have a request, a suggestion: Make some predictions. Set some arbitrary horizons. Guess what you think will happen. Write it down. (No need to share with me.)

I used to be very bullish on both algae for biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol. Much disappointment. As a layperson, I don't know enough to know the why nots and what ifs. Or if those two techs can ever be viable.

Likewise, I totally didn't foresee solar doubling every 30 months. Nor the rise of the wind juggernaut.

I was wrong. I usually am. So with new data, I reluctantly have updated my worldview.

I'm curious if you can do the same.

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

#309

Post by crispinb »

mcv wrote: post #128
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…

For a long time, the only times pollution reduced was during economic slowdowns. Lately, these movements have become separate. Measures to make our consumption cleaner means we can reduce our pollution without having to reduce our consumption, and that's basically what we need. Cleaner energy production, electric cars, better insulated houses, etc. It's happening way too slowly, but it is happening. We can absolutely…

The superstition that so-called 'economic growth' (which is actually not growth at all, but just a global entropy increase) can be decoupled from physical dismantling of ecosystems is a faith-based initiative of consumer-fundamentalism. There's no evidence that it's possible, and even the best approaches we can make would take centuries of technological advance - each decade destroying more of our living home.

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

#310

Post by crispinb »

inflatableDodo wrote: post #300
crispinb wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'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. I call it the 'Global Non-Denominational Death-Cult'. Ultimately it favours no particular group, but the tithe is very high.

Absolutely - death cult is very apt.
Post reply on HN