Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978 • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by namarie » Thu, May 23, 2019, 4:53 AM UTC

sosborn wrote: post #53

murat124 wrote: post #43

Former Exxon CEO and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson famously stated in 2013 during a meeting with Exxonmobil shareholders: "What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers"[1]. He explained, "As a species that’s why we’re all still here: we have spent our entire existence adapting. So we will adapt to this. It’s an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions." The idea that the humans will s…

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!

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

#72

Post by travisoneill1 » Thu, May 23, 2019, 4:57 AM UTC

radford-neal wrote: post #47

cbHXBY1D wrote: post #33

Almost everyone on HN recognizes that climate change is an existential threat to (most) life on earth. There is less agreement on how to mitigate it's effects. One solution which I favor is nationalization of US oil companies. While hardly discussed in the US, it's a solution that is currently being discussed in the UK and has been done by many different countries, though usually because of the legacy of imperialism…

"Almost everyone on HN recognizes that climate change is an existential threat to (most) life on earth." No. There are no even remotely plausible scenarios in which most life (say, all mammals, to pick something specific) go extinct due to climate change caused by human CO2 emissions. If you think that, you have been lied to - and have not been smart enough to recognize the lies.

The truth is that both sides ignore the science, just in opposite directions.

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

#73

Post by steve_adams_86 » Thu, May 23, 2019, 4:57 AM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #41

pier25 wrote: post #22

It's terrible to think that maybe if Exxon and others didn't invest in lobbying and disinformation campaigns against climate change maybe humanity would have started acting 30 years earlier. It's 2019 and humanity is barely starting to think about acting. Global CO2 emissions keep growing as if we were in "business as usual". Humanity needs to realize the magnitude of the problem. Climate change is, by far, the bigge…

> maybe humanity would have started acting 30 years earlier. I wouldn't bet on it. We know we can cut emissions today by investing in nuclear ... and nothing. We could have invested in nuclear power 30 years ago and prevented trillions of tons of CO2 from being emitted. Instead we decided wind/solar/natural gas (and those are always package deal) is our best bet at fighting climate change. >For example, we can't keep…

I think you're right that nuclear energy is an excellent solution in many places, but I think it's actually becoming the case that solar and wind are cheaper in the short and long term and much cleaner in the long term. I'd personally like to see all 3 used in conjunction. Nuclear is very stable, but wind and sun are highly variable.

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

#74

Post by Haga » Thu, May 23, 2019, 4:59 AM UTC

murat124 wrote: post #43

Former Exxon CEO and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson famously stated in 2013 during a meeting with Exxonmobil shareholders: "What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers"[1]. He explained, "As a species that’s why we’re all still here: we have spent our entire existence adapting. So we will adapt to this. It’s an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions." The idea that the humans will s…

Defeatist is also very comfy as minimal effort is required.

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

#75

Post by rexpop » Thu, May 23, 2019, 5:05 AM UTC

boulos wrote: post #59

cbHXBY1D wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the recent IPBES Global Assessment? An article on it from the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/climate/biodiversity-exti... "Unless nations step up their efforts to protect what natural habitats are left, they could witness the disappearance of 40 percent of amphibian species, one-third of marine mammals and one-third of reef-forming corals. More than 500,000 land species, the report said, do not…

Fwiw, I was expecting your quote to include a number >50%. Not that this wouldn’t be catastrophic, but most does mean more than 50% :). Edit: though now I’m curious by percentage of animals (presumably 40% of species may be, or even is likely, more than 40% of animals, because of power-law-style distributions).

The initial disappearance of even this minority is significant enough to impact the rest. Ecosystems are fragile, symbiotic systems.

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

#76

Post by mceoin » Thu, May 23, 2019, 5:06 AM UTC

mr_toad wrote: post #39

cbHXBY1D wrote: post #33

Almost everyone on HN recognizes that climate change is an existential threat to (most) life on earth. There is less agreement on how to mitigate it's effects. One solution which I favor is nationalization of US oil companies. While hardly discussed in the US, it's a solution that is currently being discussed in the UK and has been done by many different countries, though usually because of the legacy of imperialism…

That would only work if climate change deniers weren’t in charge of governments. If the latest Australian elections are anything to go by, popular (popularist) voter sentiment is swinging towards denial.

That’s the wrong takeaway from the recent Australian election.

The only reliable takeaway is that jobs are more important than climate to majority of voters in Queensland.

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

#77

Post by astazangasta » Thu, May 23, 2019, 5:13 AM UTC

radford-neal wrote: post #47

cbHXBY1D wrote: post #33

Almost everyone on HN recognizes that climate change is an existential threat to (most) life on earth. There is less agreement on how to mitigate it's effects. One solution which I favor is nationalization of US oil companies. While hardly discussed in the US, it's a solution that is currently being discussed in the UK and has been done by many different countries, though usually because of the legacy of imperialism…

"Almost everyone on HN recognizes that climate change is an existential threat to (most) life on earth." No. There are no even remotely plausible scenarios in which most life (say, all mammals, to pick something specific) go extinct due to climate change caused by human CO2 emissions. If you think that, you have been lied to - and have not been smart enough to recognize the lies.

Eh? There absolutely are plausible scenarios. For example, the Permian-Triassic extinction event was probably the result of runaway warming, perhaps as a result of the "clathrate gun": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

This event resulted in 96% of marine species dying and 70% of land animals dying. I don't think anyone thinks such an event is certain or likely, but it is surely a "remote possibility".

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

#78

Post by arcticbull » Thu, May 23, 2019, 5:14 AM UTC

radford-neal wrote: post #60

cbHXBY1D wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the recent IPBES Global Assessment? An article on it from the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/climate/biodiversity-exti... "Unless nations step up their efforts to protect what natural habitats are left, they could witness the disappearance of 40 percent of amphibian species, one-third of marine mammals and one-third of reef-forming corals. More than 500,000 land species, the report said, do not…

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…

Cutting off your thumb and half your forefinger is one-third of your hand, and I'm ok calling that 'most of' in context, especially if I hope to ever grasp things again :P

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

#79

Post by mirimir » Thu, May 23, 2019, 5:22 AM UTC

radford-neal wrote: post #60

cbHXBY1D wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the recent IPBES Global Assessment? An article on it from the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/climate/biodiversity-exti... "Unless nations step up their efforts to protect what natural habitats are left, they could witness the disappearance of 40 percent of amphibian species, one-third of marine mammals and one-third of reef-forming corals. More than 500,000 land species, the report said, do not…

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…

> Talk of "efforts to protect what natural habitats are left" does not seem to relate to warming from CO2 emissions.

They're connected. I mean, everything is.

Even if we didn't emit so much CO2, we destroy habitat for other species through agriculture and forest harvesting. And if we hadn't destroyed so much habitat, there'd be lots more slack for CO2 emissions.

And as you say, destroying habitat through biomass energy production -- whether it's fast-growing trees for pellets, or palm oil for biodiesel -- just makes it worse.

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

#80

Post by modzu » Thu, May 23, 2019, 5:55 AM UTC

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.

there has been plenty of genuine scepticism from within the scientific community (as there should be). what has happened is that it has become politicized such that the science is suffering for fear of being labeled a heretic. much of the research is published via the intergovernmental panel on climate change; well it's right there in the title. none of this is to say that there aren't also entities pushing propaganda (exxon, etc)