3 ms·

What is your theory though? Who is pushing this concept and for what gain?

aalleavitch 7y ago
Who has more to lose here and who has more resources to put towards propaganda and disinformation, climate scientists and green energy companies, or a deeply entrenched $1.7 trillion/year fossil fuel industry?
- tekmate 7y ago
  sure, you could arrive at this rhetorical question after about 30 seconds of rational thought OR you could be a contrarian and feel super smart because you saw through a conspiracy!
- gridlockd 7y ago
  The better question is how much money can by made now by getting in on the hype as early as possible. Just look at the disclosures.
  - aalleavitch 7y ago
    You don’t run an effective propaganda campaign on resources you don’t have yet. The comparison in existing entrenched oil wealth to the money behind climate activism is absurd.
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      Obviously not true, a propaganda machine based on ideology runs itself, all the better if there is money to be made.
javajosh 7y ago
Wikipedia has some good content about this. Basically in the 80's petrol funded think tanks pushed the idea that global warming was an phenomena created from whole cloth by a cabal of globalist leftists. I'm not sure of the exact claim of what they were/are trying to achieve, but essentially they want to put the brakes on capitalism by making people consume less, and ultimately disrupting economic growth. There are a few reasons why this was effective, especially in the US. The first is the most powerful, best expressed by the old Upton Sinclair quote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." Second, many believe that God would never do such a thing to us - it states clearly in the Bible that the world is ours to do with what we want, and it would be unjust for God to let us shoot ourselves in the foot like that, and God is not unjust. And third, it's not even real science, just dirty red communists trying to psych us out, and feckless scientists out for grant money. Fourth, Americans seem very prone to believe on authority, powerful and wealthy people, even when the statement is self-serving. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming has a lot of great content, and is well linked to, e.g., climate change denial articles.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > I'm not sure of the exact claim of what they were/are trying to achieve, but essentially they want to put the brakes on capitalism by making people consume less, and ultimately disrupting economic growth. That cabal definitely exists, it's the old "Malthusian vs. Cornucopian" debate, revived in the form of the Club of Rome and people like Paul R. Ehrlich. Lots of scientists have this attitude. The scientists that do not have this attitude are rarely heard, because anything less than the impending apocalypse barely sells an newspapers.
bborud 7y ago
> What is your theory though? Who is pushing this concept and for what gain? "Who benefits" is always a valid question. However in the climate and energy debates it is usually just left hanging there - implying that some cabal of shady characters somehow benefit. The question serves very little purpose if it isn't followed by a somewhat coherent story that points to "who benefits" and "how". So in order to redeem yourself, would you mind terribly answering who benefits. And perhaps why this is either good or bad? Names, numbers and observable facts. As for who doesn't benefit, that's much easier: incumbent energy companies and the immense government interests in maintaining the status quo. (Even the tinfoil hat "free energy" quacks manage to harp on about who is thwarting their efforts to supply the world with free energy). Heck: _I_ would benefit from maintaining the status quo. I live in Norway - a country whose pension fund is built on oil revenue and is currently the largest national sovereign wealth fund in the world. My quality of life as I retire is directly linked to how large this fund is. It would be in my interest that we keep pumping out hydrocarbons for as long as possible so we can load up on stocks and not depend on being innovative or doing actual work to remain wealthy. (That being said, this pension fund is essentially a giant index fund. So there's that :-))
- feanaro 7y ago
  > So in order to redeem yourself, would you mind terribly answering who benefits. And perhaps why this is either good or bad? Names, numbers and observable facts. I might have misunderstood the comment I was replying to. I thought it was ironically suggesting that "climate catastrophe" is being pushed by some due to an agenda so I was genuinely asking who this was and what the agenda is. At least it's my suspicion I might have misunderstood something since I'm a bit confused by the replies to my comment.
  - bborud 7y ago
    Ah yes, sorry. I misunderstood who I should really be responding to :-)

Who has more to lose here and who has more resources to put towards propaganda and disinformation, climate scientists and green energy companies, or a deeply entrenched $1.7 trillion/year fossil fuel industry?

tekmate 7y ago
sure, you could arrive at this rhetorical question after about 30 seconds of rational thought OR you could be a contrarian and feel super smart because you saw through a conspiracy!
gridlockd 7y ago
The better question is how much money can by made now by getting in on the hype as early as possible. Just look at the disclosures.
- aalleavitch 7y ago
  You don’t run an effective propaganda campaign on resources you don’t have yet. The comparison in existing entrenched oil wealth to the money behind climate activism is absurd.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    Obviously not true, a propaganda machine based on ideology runs itself, all the better if there is money to be made.

javajosh 7y ago

Wikipedia has some good content about this. Basically in the 80's petrol funded think tanks pushed the idea that global warming was an phenomena created from whole cloth by a cabal of globalist leftists. I'm not sure of the exact claim of what they were/are trying to achieve, but essentially they want to put the brakes on capitalism by making people consume less, and ultimately disrupting economic growth. There are a few reasons why this was effective, especially in the US. The first is the most powerful, best expressed by the old Upton Sinclair quote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." Second, many believe that God would never do such a thing to us - it states clearly in the Bible that the world is ours to do with what we want, and it would be unjust for God to let us shoot ourselves in the foot like that, and God is not unjust. And third, it's not even real science, just dirty red communists trying to psych us out, and feckless scientists out for grant money. Fourth, Americans seem very prone to believe on authority, powerful and wealthy people, even when the statement is self-serving. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming has a lot of great content, and is well linked to, e.g., climate change denial articles.

gridlockd 7y ago
> I'm not sure of the exact claim of what they were/are trying to achieve, but essentially they want to put the brakes on capitalism by making people consume less, and ultimately disrupting economic growth. That cabal definitely exists, it's the old "Malthusian vs. Cornucopian" debate, revived in the form of the Club of Rome and people like Paul R. Ehrlich. Lots of scientists have this attitude. The scientists that do not have this attitude are rarely heard, because anything less than the impending apocalypse barely sells an newspapers.

bborud 7y ago

> What is your theory though? Who is pushing this concept and for what gain? "Who benefits" is always a valid question. However in the climate and energy debates it is usually just left hanging there - implying that some cabal of shady characters somehow benefit. The question serves very little purpose if it isn't followed by a somewhat coherent story that points to "who benefits" and "how". So in order to redeem yourself, would you mind terribly answering who benefits. And perhaps why this is either good or bad? Names, numbers and observable facts. As for who doesn't benefit, that's much easier: incumbent energy companies and the immense government interests in maintaining the status quo. (Even the tinfoil hat "free energy" quacks manage to harp on about who is thwarting their efforts to supply the world with free energy). Heck: _I_ would benefit from maintaining the status quo. I live in Norway - a country whose pension fund is built on oil revenue and is currently the largest national sovereign wealth fund in the world. My quality of life as I retire is directly linked to how large this fund is. It would be in my interest that we keep pumping out hydrocarbons for as long as possible so we can load up on stocks and not depend on being innovative or doing actual work to remain wealthy. (That being said, this pension fund is essentially a giant index fund. So there's that :-))

feanaro 7y ago
> So in order to redeem yourself, would you mind terribly answering who benefits. And perhaps why this is either good or bad? Names, numbers and observable facts. I might have misunderstood the comment I was replying to. I thought it was ironically suggesting that "climate catastrophe" is being pushed by some due to an agenda so I was genuinely asking who this was and what the agenda is. At least it's my suspicion I might have misunderstood something since I'm a bit confused by the replies to my comment.
- bborud 7y ago
  Ah yes, sorry. I misunderstood who I should really be responding to :-)