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

The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 70 posts

Re: The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

#41

Post by Comevius »

celdon25 wrote: post #37
Comevius wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I clearly do. Hitler killed millions of people, not unlike the Black Death or Genghis Khan, but what can you do, life goes on. Climate change is different. Life will absolutely not go on if we don't start handling it. It's an extinction event, and that's not a hyperbole, we are actually in the middle of the Holocene extinction event, also called the sixth mass extinction.

If it weren't for Hitler, World War II might have been over climate policy instead, and there might be no nukes. You gloss over Nth-order effects and cite a single statistic to compare relative damage done to humanity (spoiler alert: what you actually tried to do here is not possible to scientifically do at all - you are pro-science, right?). This tells me that you haven't done any real research on the topic, but are…

The what if game works the other way around too. The Third Reich spent a lot of rethorical attention on environmentalism that soon became a less pressing concern. Under different circumstances however one might imagine that they would have tried to make the 1000-year Reich a reality, and nature conservancy and curbing pollution would have been a fit ideologically. But priorities tend to change, and the lack of individualism is not a guarantee against hypercapitalism.

Nuclear weapons were inevitable, they are trivial inventions.

Nobody would have fought over climate policy a 100 years ago. Climate change barely received any publicity before James Hansen's testimony in 1988.

Re: The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

#42

Post by throwaway5Am1k »

Comevius wrote: post #33
celdon25 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it makes Hitler look like a saint. You clearly don't understand what you are talking about, based on this.

I clearly do. Hitler killed millions of people, not unlike the Black Death or Genghis Khan, but what can you do, life goes on. Climate change is different. Life will absolutely not go on if we don't start handling it. It's an extinction event, and that's not a hyperbole, we are actually in the middle of the Holocene extinction event, also called the sixth mass extinction.

>Life will absolutely not go on if we don't start handling it.

Hyperbole much? The Earth used to be a molten rock and from it life sprung forth. Do you honestly believe that we can put it into a worse position?

Humans might go extinct, but I'm certain that life will go on.

Re: The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

#43

Post by origin_path »

Comevius wrote: post #21
flooow wrote: post #5

> "My role was to identify the voices that were not in the mainstream and to give those voices a stage," Rheem says. [...] > He says the media was hungry for these perspectives. > "Journalists were actually actively looking for the contrarians. It was really feeding an appetite that was already there." A rare example of the BBC breaking the media omertà on itself here. You thought journalism was supposed to help you…

Just because a perspective is different it doesn't mean that it's the truth, or should be treated equally importantly for the sake of some kind of balance. Climate change denial is a good example, because it's not the truth, and it's not important. It doesn't have it's own scientific literature, nobody ever tries to prove it, it's contrarianism at best, propaganda at worst. And yet the media tends to give it an equal…

It sounds like you never actually spent any time reading anything by people who dispute popular narratives on climate change. If you did you'd know that nothing you just said is true. They frequently prove the points they're making, often via reference to climatologist's own papers, and it's not mere contrarianism but rather is pointing out places in which their science either isn't reliable or is being misrepresented.

Look at it this way. In the past few days HN has had a bunch of submissions on the news that a major paper in Alzheimer's research appears to be entirely fraudulent. It was noticed by outside "deniers", not any scientists within the field itself, and the science based on it went 16 years and received hundreds of millions of dollars in NIH funding. All based on some dodgy Photoshops, or so it appears.

When people argue with climatology and (often) absurd media claims that aren't even well connected to published science to begin with, they're usually arguing about actual, concrete problems with what scientists are doing. To believe that it's all mere contrarianism and propaganda is the sort of naive "Believe The Science!"-ism that has trashed trust in public health in the past two years, and worse, created a culture in which researchers think that they can get away with anything.

Re: The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

#44

Post by Comevius »

throwaway5Am1k wrote: post #42
Comevius wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I clearly do. Hitler killed millions of people, not unlike the Black Death or Genghis Khan, but what can you do, life goes on. Climate change is different. Life will absolutely not go on if we don't start handling it. It's an extinction event, and that's not a hyperbole, we are actually in the middle of the Holocene extinction event, also called the sixth mass extinction.

>Life will absolutely not go on if we don't start handling it. Hyperbole much? The Earth used to be a molten rock and from it life sprung forth. Do you honestly believe that we can put it into a worse position? Humans might go extinct, but I'm certain that life will go on.

The biosphere is not undestroyable by any measure. Prior extinction events haven't manage to permanently damage it, but we shouldn't set the bar that low and rely on life's magical ability to spring forth and prosper under any circumstances.

Re: The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

#45

Post by headsoup »

jamessb wrote: post #34
Barrin92 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BBC as a public broadcaster isn't in the business of hosting contrarians for profit but to broadcast factful news, so.. not really. The opinion of scientists qualified to speak on the question of CC matters, letting literal oil lobbyists speak is like asking the fox if we should keep the door to the henhouse open.

> The BBC as a public broadcaster isn't in the business of hosting contrarians In the past, the BBC certainly has been in the business of "hosting contrarians", though perhaps with the misguided intention of providing balance rather than attracting viewers. For example, OFCOM found them to have broken broadcasting standards by allowing Lord Lawson (a well-known climate change denialist) to make false statements on th…

Weird though that it's perfectly fine to host false statements so long as they're on the correct 'side.' Those become honest mistakes or 'the science changed,' etc. This helps no one, as does not allowing opposing opinions/'science' just because, especially if controversial.

As long as the journalists are ensuring they do enough diligence to not present blatant lies or propaganda, it should not matter which 'side' is presented, journalism is supposedly (?) about presenting honest data and information for the viewer/consumer to form their own opinions on.

If someone somehow forms the opinion that climate change isn't a thing, then present better arguments and information and debate with honesty and integrity. It's not as loud and might not get the internet clicks, but it will shine through better in the end, much as it doesn't seem to in the moment. Don't let the fear/threat of trolls block being challenged by opposing ideas.

Re: The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

#46

Post by headsoup »

simiones wrote: post #13
headsoup wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you at least appreciate the irony of the BBC here saying we shouldn't give contrary opinions a stage as a way of ensuring integrity?

Integrity in news reporting has nothing to do with presenting every possible view as legitimate. A news report about the Earth that invites both physicists and flat earth loonies is not in any way better than one that doesn't even mention the flat Earth "theory". You are actively misleading the public when inviting climate change deniers to a discussion about climate change.

Yes it is way better! If flat Earth is so outlandish (which it is), it should be easily dismantled in debate and journalistic investigation. Not wanting to allow it full stop for fear of internet trolls grouping up is no solution at all.

Re: The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

#47

Post by headsoup »

simiones wrote: post #31
silverpepsi wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a challenge I bet your little principle can't sustain: find a major long standing theory in human history that turned out to be wrong. Then apply your idea . The desired outcome for a rational principle would be that the truth and reality bubbles efficiently to the surface instead of gets burried and is taboo and something people are ostracized for promoting. I have yet to hear a principle that can deliver thi…

For pure scientific debates, I'm all for inviting any scientist with some amount of credentials to the table. But for public policy debates, I think the track record is exactly the opposite: for every major public policy issue that required scientific knowledge, inviting the reactionary types dug out by the sleazy PR industry has done a dis-service to the public. We've seen this with tabacco, with led, and with globa…

Define 'some amount of credentials' and I'll bet I can find you scientists with them that support the thing you say is loony.

Re: The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

#49

Post by headsoup »

chess_buster wrote: post #15
headsoup wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you at least appreciate the irony of the BBC here saying we shouldn't give contrary opinions a stage as a way of ensuring integrity?

The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject. --Marcus Aurelius

But then the question must be asked who then gives them an opinion?

Re: The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

#50

Post by headsoup »

Barrin92 wrote: post #11
headsoup wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you at least appreciate the irony of the BBC here saying we shouldn't give contrary opinions a stage as a way of ensuring integrity?

The BBC as a public broadcaster isn't in the business of hosting contrarians for profit but to broadcast factful news, so.. not really. The opinion of scientists qualified to speak on the question of CC matters, letting literal oil lobbyists speak is like asking the fox if we should keep the door to the henhouse open.

So here contrarians are mutually exclusive with facts?
Post reply on HN