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

51–60 of 70 posts

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

#51

Post by jfim »

origin_path wrote: post #43
Comevius wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 misrepresente…

There are simple observations that even non climatologists can do that show the climate warming up. For example, here's a look at the glaciers in glacier national park: https://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/nature/glacier-repeat-photos....

Or one can ask why the shipping routes in Northern Canada would start becoming passable if the climate isn't warming up.

Or ask why we keep on beating heat records in the last decade.

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

#52

Post by Comevius »

origin_path wrote: post #43
Comevius wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 misrepresente…

Climate change deniers rarely argue about the details, or even know about them. The way science works is that there is a big picture, and the details are slowly filled in. Like Newton's law, which is an approximation to general relativity, which itself is an approximation to something we don't yet understand, possibly quantum gravity. At the forefront of such research there are uncertainties, mistakes, hype, fraud even, because that's how humans are, and yet there is progress.

At this point however there is no reason to wait for climate change research to discover additional details no matter how important they might be, because it is already clear that action is needed. The risks are dire and constantly underestimated.

Climate change deniers usually maliciously deny the big picture, or sometimes use new developments that are in the flux as an example of how science can't be trusted. They do this without ever engaging the science and publishing papers. It's all about the social media for them.

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

#53

Post by simiones »

headsoup wrote: post #47
simiones wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And as I said: that's fine - let them publish in scientific journals, let them give lectures at universities, let them participate in scientific debates.

But as long as their opinion is out of the mainstream of their field, keep them away from discussions of that field with the general public - especially when the general public has to make policy decisions based on that field.

If their scientific arguments are not convincing to their scientific peers, then they shouldn't be given a podium to try to convince the public through rhetoric and charisma.

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

#54

Post by simiones »

headsoup wrote: post #46
simiones wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure: journalistic investigation should quickly dismantle it, which means they shouldn't report it to the public. It would be like reporting someone's words that you have found are lies, just to be fair and balanced.

On the other hands, debates with a general audience (i.e. non-experts) are a terrible way to judge scientific arguments. Non-experts are simply unable to judge for themselves the strength of most scientific arguments, because they simply don't know the fields well enough. The vast majority of the arguments will fly by us and we'll be left as confused or more; and we'll pick winners based on charisma rather than any deeper thought.

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

#55

Post by simiones »

headsoup wrote: post #45
jamessb wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

If you're not already climate scientist, or willing to seriously read up on the literature, then you have no chance of understanding and judging for yourself arguments about the field - this is true for most fields requiring advanced mathematics and statistics. You are deluding yourself if you think you can listen to two climate scientists debate a point and accurately assess who has the better argument; not that this may even be true if you are a climate scientist, as you often need to run your own experiments or at least verify equations and statistical models before making up your mind.

The purpose of journalism is exactly to process facts to the public at a level where they can be understood by most people reading/watching them. The proper way to do science journalism is two steps removed from the raw scientific discussion: you ask scientists in the field about the mainstream opinion, about how strong the consensus is, about plausible non-mainstream opinions; maybe you check with a few people close to the field but outside of it to see what are opinions about the field itself in the larger academic context. If you can, you also get information about consequences of these theories in terms that can be understood by a non-expert audience (such as time dilation and the way it is used in GPS satellites for special relativity).

Then, you present to the public a condensed version of this information.

What you don't do is ignore all of this burden of journalistic research and just bring some scientists that are for or against a theory and let them make some random simplified meaningless arguments to the public to see who has the slicker tongue and nothing else.

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

#56

Post by headsoup »

simiones wrote: post #55
headsoup wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. If you're not already climate scientist, or willing to seriously read up on the literature, then you have no chance of understanding and judging for yourself arguments about the field - this is true for most fields requiring advanced mathematics and statistics.…

Ah, the old everyone's an idiot that can't think critically thing. People might not form the opinion you want, but that doesn't mean they can't still be critical and come to an informed opinion.

I think none of these topics are the problem being actually hinted at. Instead, I would ask bigger questions: - Why do we seem to have an increasing number of politicians/positions of power with little to no depth of experience in their field?

- After decades and more of scientific abuse and manipulation by corporations, how do we rebuild trust (I think this is particularly relevant to the discussion here)?

- How do we ensure social media companies do not influence discussion, but also try to avoid echo chambers and propoganda?

In other words, it's not people not understanding a topic or the 'wrong' voices getting too much attention or too many 'wrong' opinions that is the problem, these are just symptoms. Good arguments, data and integrity and more discussion should always be desired and encouraged as the way to debate and understand. Most other options are roads to tyranny of some form.

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

#57

Post by headsoup »

simiones wrote: post #54
headsoup wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure: journalistic investigation should quickly dismantle it, which means they shouldn't report it to the public. It would be like reporting someone's words that you have found are lies, just to be fair and balanced. On the other hands, debates with a general audience (i.e. non-experts) are a terrible way to judge scientific arguments. Non-experts are simply unable to judge for themselves the strength of most scienti…

Yes but people must do that every day anyway. It's like saying no expert opinion or statement is valid unless you check credentials first and they meet some arbitrary bar of merit.

And even then, we've witnessed a long history of 'credentialed' people being corporate puppets for certain agendas, peddlers of their own self-importance and fraud or just plain wrong.

We should pick experts, but we should pick from a range, not just the experts we like or decide are on the right side. And sometimes also pay attention to the non-experts, they can ask very interesting questions and provide good thought experiments, even if naive.

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

#58

Post by headsoup »

simiones wrote: post #53
headsoup wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And as I said: that's fine - let them publish in scientific journals, let them give lectures at universities, let them participate in scientific debates. But as long as their opinion is out of the mainstream of their field, keep them away from discussions of that field with the general public - especially when the general public has to make policy decisions based on that field. If their scientific arguments are not c…

I wonder how long it would have taken to discover the gut-brain links if experts were not allowed to speak out of their fields. Do we also measure the credentials of the peers and check their biases before allowing them to approve arguments and enter the mainstream (whatever that's supposed to mean)?

This line of reasoning is fraught with danger, though yes we should always at least try to ensure the arguments come from expertise and experience.

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

#59

Post by aurora72 »

phtrivier wrote: post #7
aurora72 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you believe whatever story appears on BBC?

"So you believe BBC exists ? Do your own research !". Yes, though, I'm inclined to believe a sourced article from a major publicly founded outlet including quotes from the "accused" admiting to what they have done, over most corporate PR. But maybe I should not, what do we care anyway ?

They'll of course add the "sources". They are not stupid.

Addendum: Yep I believe BBC exists.

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

#60

Post by nathanaldensr »

celdon25 wrote: post #28
Comevius wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crimes against humanity, it's what it is. Sabotaging the human race for personal gain is the ultimate crime, it makes Hitler look like a saint. Any sentient species in the Universe wishing to prevail must, absolutely must be able to effectively discourage such behavior.

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

You're arguing with a religious person. Logic has no place in these conversations, unfortunately.
Post reply on HN