17 ms·
Not news of course, but worth restating. Credulous 'scepticism' about the fundamentals of the climate collapse threat has been largely driven by corporate propa
by crispinb 7y ago
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.
- modzu 7y agothere 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)
- logjammin 7y agoExample of investigators whose work has suffered for fear of being labeled a heretic?
- modzu 7y agoFreeman Dyson
- scotty79 7y agoHe's a physicists. Why would he have any idea about climate? He's just a person with an opinion not a dissenting scientist. And if his work suffered as a result of voicing such opinion then it was only to be expected. If you voice stupid opinion regarding domain you know almost nothing about and prop it up with your work reputation it's only fair if that reputation takes a hit.
- Youcandothis 7y agoThe climate is a physical phenomenon.
- kaybe 7y agoAnd many climate scientists are in fact physicists.
- scotty79 7y agoEverything 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.
- modzu 7y agothat'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"
- scotty79 7y agoLogic 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.
- maxlybbert 7y agoThe “97% consensus” number is based on surveys of scientists in general, not just climate scientists. Including scientists when they agree with a position, but not when they disagree (because they aren’t real climate experts) is a very strange debate tactic.
- akvadrako 7y agoOne of the more famous cases recently was Peter Ridd. He just won a court case against his university after being sacked for questioning the climate consensus.
- kaybe 7y agoHe said the Great Barrier reef will profit from climate change and not die off because of it, is that the issue you mean? Sooo - if it's true, great, one problem less! Regardless, there are still many other problems caused by climate change that he did not dispute and that we still have to fight. So the best course forward is still to reduce emissions, and keep an eye on the reef to see what's true. --- Googling around I found the statement that “Dr Ridd was not sacked because of his scientific views. Dr Ridd was never gagged or silenced about his scientific views, a matter which was admitted during the court hearing.” [0] (But if that's true or not.. hard to say from here. The court recordings would have evidence.) [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/16/james-cook-university-professor-peter-ridds-sacking-ruled-unlawful https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/16/james-co...
- adrianN 7y agoUnless you literally don't believe the raw numbers coming from sensors all over the world there is no room for doubting that the climate is changing. There can, and has been, plenty of discussion as to the reasons, but for at least thirty years now the consensus has been that human activity is responsible for the vast majority of the effects we've seen.
- modzu 7y agoum, "climate changing" is uncontroversial. the question that science is trying to answer, is "why". one hypothesis being fossil fuel emissions. you will note even the IPCC does't claim to have a definitive answer. yet a bunch of programmers and entrepreneurs on HN have no doubts.
- adrianN 7y agoSo what's your gripe with "climate change" being in the name of the IPCC?
- modzu 7y agosorry it wasnt clear from my comment, but mainly that a governmental panel == politicized, and also that the IPCC reports to the UNFCCC, whose mission is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system". in other words, it assumes the hypothesis that the science should be testing
- adrianN 7y agoYeah well the UNFCCC is from the nineties. By then the consensus was already there that anthropogenic GHG emissions are the culprit.
- tzs 7y agoIt's not a hypothesis. That greenhouse gases affect heat retention can and has been directly observed. That the rise in greenhouse gases is mostly human-induced can also be pretty directly shown by isotope analysis, which can distinguish CO2 that comes from burning fossil fuels or burning forests from other CO2 sources.
- rmellow 7y agoThe fact you are being downvoted really makes the case that any dissent on climate change makes you a heretic. And before I'm downvoted, note that you don't know my position on climate change: all I'm against is punishing people for genuine disagreement of thought.
- mikestew 7y agoall I'm against is punishing people for genuine disagreement of thought. I'll down vote you for the straw man. You have no idea why parent is being down voted, but a top runner on my list of guesses is that "scientists want to disagree, but they don't for fear of speaking up" is a pretty weak argument.
- jokoon 7y agoThis is one way to look at it. My view is that climate change is a world problem. Governments will not oblige their citizens to make steps on their consumption if it means reducing their comfort and their economic power. Steps should be taken in advance so that once green deals are put in place, countries can implement those effortlessly. We often hear that some countries don't make enough efforts, but 1. Other countries import carbon emitting products 2. The developed countries of today have emmited greenhouse gases for decades, which allowed them to become developed countries. The geopolitics of climate change are extremely difficult. I don't think the UN is up for it. Although a better scenario would be to enact tight regulations on a country basis, but it's a political minefield. Imagine riots because people want to keep using their cars and trade goods that have become illegal, or vendettas against people who emit co2.
- Mirioron 7y agoI find it difficult to imagine how solutions to climate change, that don't rely on improvement in technology, won't result in authoritarianism. I don't think that all the world governments will accept limitations on their people freely.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoThe clean air acts, the banning of freon and other CFCs, and other public health measures like treated water and ending leaded fuel required regulation not authoritarianism. All placed limitations on their people. Why would this be any different? We don't need to replace political choice, or freedoms with repression to bring in carbon taxes and start banning plastic, coal or gas.
- Mirioron 7y agoBecause those limitations are minor compared to "eat less meat", "don't drive a car" and "food will be more expensive in general". These are going to be very tough sells among populations that are not rich. Look at the Yellow Vests in France.
- rjf72 7y agoThis is not a well supported position. There are numerous well established scientists who have expressed concern and criticism on the current 'consensus' in regards to climate change. These include for instances Richard Lindzen [1], a member of the National Academies of Science, an MIT atmospheric physicist, and also a lead author on one of the scientific sections of IPCC climate report. Appeals to authority are foolish, but I think his credentialing is relevant to this discussion. Beyond that, one major issue is that the extreme politicization of this issues makes it difficult for people to speak freely. Anybody who speaks their mind on this topic, when such view doesn't abide the 'proper' view is labeled, attacked, and ostracized when and if possible. So you end up primarily with radicals, fools, and a handful of people with extremely thick skin willing to speak. A similar treatment was given to those who, for instance, suggested that leaded fuel might indeed be harmful - the official government and 'consensus' position for decades was that it was safe or posed negligible risk. I am not, in this posting, thus taking any side. But I do think if you ever want to achieve progress on any topic, people being able to speak freely is critical to progress. Only weak or poorly supported ideas need fear 'contrarian' views. And even in the rare case where those weak or poorly supported ideas happen to be the truth, they invariably become stronger over time (due to the accumulation of validated falsifiable evidence) while, vice versa, alternative views become weaker. But perhaps more importantly, I think the desire to squash contrarian views has a paradoxical effect. The idea is of course to try to prevent the spread of these ideas, yet in reality there never works - even less so now that we've entered the era of the internet. See: China + Winnie the Pooh for an amusing example. But far more critically, I think efforts to avoid discussion are often seen as an inability to compellingly respond. Once ideas reach a critical mass, they will spread unless compellingly challenged. Refusing to challenge these ideas in a fair and impartial way only strengthens them. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
- graeme 7y agoLindzen doesn't dispute that CO2 warms the atmosphere! The vast majority of "skeptics" seem to think it's all a fraud, and that CO2 does nothing. There is zero support for that position. If you would like to debate the merits of Lindzen's views, feel free to do so: he thinks there will be less warming than existing models predict. He doesn't deny warming! Meanwhile he retired in 2013, and as far as I can tell has produced no active research in this field since 2011. And his 2011 paper was widely panned including by reviewers he selected. He had to correct numerous errors in the paper. According to wikipedia, he eventually argued that at least 75% of predicted warming was happening. So, a 25% margin off a catastrophic level of warming. And that's the very best name you can produce. And this info is all in the link you sent. And that's apart from the question of whether he was right in his argument in 2011, which is a factual answer we can measure with temperature sensors. (IIRC, warming has progressed faster than expected instead) Contrary to your point, there is tremendous economic incentive to prove that fossil fuels are safe, cause us no trouble, and can continue to be used. Anyone who decisively proved that would be a hero, as fossil fuels are very useful indeed. The absence of such a person suggests that this view is mistaken.
- jacobush 7y ago"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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9XeyBd_IuA
- amanaplanacanal 7y agoIt'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.
- jacobush 7y agoI 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...
- inflatableDodo 7y agoTop 100 Corporate and National economies, by revenue - https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/resources/corporations_vs_governments_final.pdf 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-100-economies-31-countries-69-corporations 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-uT-IJ:https://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/miga/world-s-top-100-economies-31-countries-69-corporations+ https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Qt-r1E...