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

321–330 of 340 posts

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

#321

Post by ddebernardy »

macspoofing wrote: post #232
ddebernardy wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-oversaw-the-us-nucl... > I oversaw the U.S. nuclear power industry. Now I think it should be banned. > By Gregory Jaczko > Gregory Jaczko served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 2005 to 2009, and as its chairman from 2009 to 2012. The author is arguably talking his book, since he invested in a wind power company. But it's still noteworthy that nuclear physicists and f…

Here's the first line: >The danger from climate change no longer outweighs the risks of nuclear accidents. If that's the assumption, then yes, let's get rid of nukes. Do you think the risk of nuclear accidents is more important than cutting CO2 emissions?

If memory serves me well, the author argues in a nutshell that, until recently, the risk of nuclear accidents was viewed as low enough that it was an acceptable one to take to reduce CO2 emissions, whereas nowadays producing green energy (wind, solar, geothermal) has become cheap enough -- and cheaper than nuclear, particularly if you factor in storing the waste -- that the nuclear risk is no longer acceptable.

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

#322

Post by macspoofing »

ddebernardy wrote: post #321
macspoofing wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the first line: >The danger from climate change no longer outweighs the risks of nuclear accidents. If that's the assumption, then yes, let's get rid of nukes. Do you think the risk of nuclear accidents is more important than cutting CO2 emissions?

If memory serves me well, the author argues in a nutshell that, until recently, the risk of nuclear accidents was viewed as low enough that it was an acceptable one to take to reduce CO2 emissions, whereas nowadays producing green energy (wind, solar, geothermal) has become cheap enough -- and cheaper than nuclear, particularly if you factor in storing the waste -- that the nuclear risk is no longer acceptable.

>whereas nowadays producing green energy (wind, solar, geothermal) has become cheap enough

I keep hearing this meme, that either wind/solar is cheaper than X (where X is coal or nuclear) or is soon to be cheaper. The reality is that they are cheap and getting cheaper but the point is moot because wind/solar cannot power a modern economy.

By the way, Geothermal and hydro are great, but we're pretty much done with them. We've dammed every river that can be dammed and developed every geyser that can be developed.

>that the nuclear risk is no longer acceptable.

Our only real alternative to nuclear is wind/solar/natural gas (or coal). I put them as a package deal because they are a package deal. Wind/Solar only work when coupled with natural gas - this is why Germany is signing multi-billion natural gas as they are ramping up their wind and solar deployments. This is why every natural gas company now lobbies for wind and solar deployments. The problem is that natural gas is destructive to develop (for example may need fracking to extract) and is a fossil fuel. So if you really think that CO2 emissions are an existential crisis and cutting them to 0 is important - nuclear is still the only game in town. Otherwise, you're investing in natural gas as you are ramping up your solar panels and windmills.

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

#323

Post by ThomPete »

kaybe wrote: post #268
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…

I really hope you are right. :) > The IPCC doesn't do any research themselves and don't check the data, its a meta-study. The people writing the chapters are involved in doing the research. (It's not like doing that is a full-time job, mind.) > What started my skepticism was when I realized they don't actually know how much human co2 emissions affect the temperature. Go try and find that number, you won't find it cau…

I understand how it works and I assume you can see the problem with this. The IPCC report is there to prove human impact on the climate it's not there to show IF humans have impact on the climate.

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

#324

Post by sctb »

madaxe_again wrote: post #83
radford-neal wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talk of "efforts to protect what natural habitats are left" does not seem to relate to warming from CO2 emissions. Except, that is, that if you're concerned about protecting habitats, you should be concerned about some of the boondoggles destroying them that are justified by "global warming" alarmism - such as replacing natural forests with monocultures of trees that are converted to pellets and shipped long distance…

Almost every one of your posts here is to refute climate change. Someone could be forgiven for thinking you have an interest in fossil fuels. Edit: I see from your CV that you have a history of working with the fossil fuel industry - specifically, Exxon in Calgary in the early 80’s. I think it’s safe to disregard anything you have to say on the topic.

> Please don't make insinuations about astroturfing. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried, email us and we'll look at the data.

Besides this, it's rude to address other community members this way. Just email us at hn@ycombinator.com if you have such concerns, we take them seriously and we have better options for addressing them.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#325

Post by tempestn »

ThomPete wrote: post #319
tempestn wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm not. CO2 has increased more than temperature, but both have increased, as you can see from the graph on the link I included next to that statement.

But temperatures haven't increased significantly and especially not when you compare from late 1800 to mid 1900 thats almost the same increase around the 0.5 long before any significant co2 emissions from us. Thats the point here.

You're saying a 1 degree increase over a hundred years is not significant? That's an unprecedented rate of change.[1] And again, most of the effect from the greenhouse gasses released over the past 50 years hasn't been seen yet, because it affects the rate of change of temperature, not the instantaneous temperature. Unfortunately by the time the effect is impossible for you to ignore, it will be too late to prevent massive damage. Also unfortunately, that damage will impact all of us, not just those who don't believe climate change is an issue.

Anyway, this will probably be my last comment in the thread, since I'm getting the impression you're not really open to this information, but hopefully you'll prove me wrong.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/were-...

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

#326

Post by crimsonalucard »

reitanqild wrote: post #320
crimsonalucard wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

History is full of people who faced severe consequences or even death instead of lying. What you said was literally (emphasis mine): > that's what you and all other humans would do if they got into the same situation. Which is literally false if history books and court records are to be belived. As for religion, people can both be honest and mistaken. Honesty is about intent, not about being verifyable true. So while…

Social sciences and questions about how a mass population would behave are always fuzzy. Some people would and some people wouldn't. My argument is that most people would lie to others and themselves, so much so that it encompasses the greater majority. Although I said all people, I would argue that common sense implies the phrase "almost all" because such absolute answers don't exist in the social sciences or sciences in general.

Also I didn't emphasize hard choices involving death. I was referring to life's work. Something you believed to be true your entire life and suddenly you have to give it all up because it's not true. (Think religion and evolution). There are examples of people slowly accepting the truth rather than instantly but even those are few and far in between. To maintain the illusion people build scaffolds like intelligent design to make sure their old frameworks fit the new ones.

I'm not talking about coexistence either. There is no need to bring that topic up. The only fact to support my thesis here is that part of the population is verfiably delusional for sure.

I also disagree with you about honesty. It's more complex than that. People can lie to themselves. Their biases can mold their behavior to the point where they deny logic. One religion must be wrong and those people will fight to the death for their beliefs just like how a fossil fuel company must be wrong and they will fight to the deaths for their beliefs.

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

#327

Post by ThomPete »

tempestn wrote: post #325
ThomPete wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But temperatures haven't increased significantly and especially not when you compare from late 1800 to mid 1900 thats almost the same increase around the 0.5 long before any significant co2 emissions from us. Thats the point here.

You're saying a 1 degree increase over a hundred years is not significant? That's an unprecedented rate of change.[1] And again, most of the effect from the greenhouse gasses released over the past 50 years hasn't been seen yet, because it affects the rate of change of temperature, not the instantaneous temperature. Unfortunately by the time the effect is impossible for you to ignore, it will be too late to prevent m…

Again please explain this

1-degree increase first 0.5 from late 1800 to mid 1900 when we didn't emit much CO2 second 0.5 degree where we emitted a lot.

You were the one claiming your graph illustrated something.

You have no basis for this claim:

"And again, most of the effect from the greenhouse gasses released over the past 50 years hasn't been seen yet,"

Of course, it has and as we have learned it doesn't have as big an impact as we thought it had which is why they had to adjust it down.

By your logic, the increase in temperature from the first half of the last century was also then delayed from earlier in the 1800s where we used even less.

So perhaps you should consider if it's you not me who should be open to new information.

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

#328

Post by FrojoS »

ridicter wrote: post #266
FrojoS wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. I live in Switzerland not the US, so I’m not well informed on US legislation. What about my points 1 and 2? Is the roadmap reliable and aggressive, and are all products incl. imported ones included.

This sounds very similar to cap and trade, no? Place a cap on total emissions, and decrease that cap over time. Correspondingly, have pollution permits that are allocated according to this cap. Companies that are especially CO2 efficient can sell their extra pollution allowances. Companies that are not can purchase these pollution allowances. As the cap is set lower and lower every year, the pollution allowances beco…

Exactly. Cap and trade including all industries and imports and with aggressive allowances.

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

#329

Post by throwaway66666 »

reitanqild wrote: post #106
throwaway66666 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I (not a mod, just your a regular HN user) think it's perfectly fine to post your own content. As long as you don't spam it, and you don't post over-flattering headlines for it. And definitely way better than posting your content under a guise of an "unafilliated" friend. It will reach the front page and stay here only if it's good, so who cares if it came straight from the wolf's mouth. Also pretty creepy that peopl…

Not sure how to vote this: Totally agree with the first part. The second part describes a thing I regularily do as "pretty creepy". To clarify: before deciding to flag, downvote or vouch for someone I might have a look at their comment history to see if I am misunderstanding something. Also if someone posts something nice I look through their history to find more good comments. I don't think I'm the only one who does…

I did not mean to offend you. And I am sorry I used that terminology. To me it felt odd that if you reach the front page suddenly eyes are looking at your history and everything you have done.

If you put yourself out there, suddenly eyes are watching everything. That seemed a bit scary (and again sorry for using emotional words), though of course makes sense why it happens.

But in general, I fully agree with you. There are many reasons to do it, and perhaps it's even helpful when something is not clear and you want to understand better where someone is coming from, as you said.

Apologies again.

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

#330

Post by dragonwriter »

reitanqild wrote: post #106
throwaway66666 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I (not a mod, just your a regular HN user) think it's perfectly fine to post your own content. As long as you don't spam it, and you don't post over-flattering headlines for it. And definitely way better than posting your content under a guise of an "unafilliated" friend. It will reach the front page and stay here only if it's good, so who cares if it came straight from the wolf's mouth. Also pretty creepy that peopl…

Not sure how to vote this: Totally agree with the first part. The second part describes a thing I regularily do as "pretty creepy". To clarify: before deciding to flag, downvote or vouch for someone I might have a look at their comment history to see if I am misunderstanding something. Also if someone posts something nice I look through their history to find more good comments. I don't think I'm the only one who does…

Downote is for comments that don't contribute positively to the discussion. Flagging is for more egregious violations of community guidelines.

Whether a comment deserves either of those does not in any way depend on the commenter's posting history and to reference posting history in applying them is problematic in a manner akin to the ad hominem fallacy, in that it substitutes a general judgement of the source of an utterance when what is called for is a judgement on the utterance itself.

Post reply on HN