5 ms·

The article actually makes this clear: if you believe that "climate change is up for debate, or that climate change is no big deal"...then you are a "climate de

The article actually makes this clear: if you believe that "climate change is up for debate, or that climate change is no big deal"...then you are a "climate denier". I wonder if the guys at Smithsonian read some of the research on this from the 70s. Much of that turned out to be woefully inaccurate - Limits to Growth most famously - and that did massive damage...lesson learned? I think not.

huffmsa 7y ago
They probably have read it but discount it's inaccuracies the same way failed implementations of Marxism are discounted. > "Well we know how to do it right this time" Which is what was said last time too, but who's counting
TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
Unlike Climate Change Modelling, Limits to Growth never had the support of 97% of domain-relevant scientists. And before someone says "Yes, but..." - just because someone is a contrarian doesn't make them right. Galileo was right because he was a more honest scientist than the fact-deniers around him. That's exactly where we are today - with the difference that the fact-deniers are the ones running the climate change denial PR outfits and think tanks.
- oaeu098UEOnth 7y ago
  Absolutely, they deny facts like natural climate oscillations, or that CO2 is actually a good thing for plants, and thus, for humans.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    You do realize that water "is a good thing for humans", but that drowning is still deadly, right?
rapnie 7y ago
There has been a lot of criticism on Limits to Growth, but there has also been a lot of positive review in recent years e.g.: > "In 2008, Graham Turner of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) found that the observed historical data from 1970 to 2000 closely match the simulated results of the "standard run" limits of growth model for almost all the outputs reported. "The comparison is well within uncertainty bounds of nearly all the data in terms of both magnitude and the trends over time." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth#Positive_reviews https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth#Positiv...

huffmsa 7y ago

They probably have read it but discount it's inaccuracies the same way failed implementations of Marxism are discounted. > "Well we know how to do it right this time" Which is what was said last time too, but who's counting

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago

Unlike Climate Change Modelling, Limits to Growth never had the support of 97% of domain-relevant scientists. And before someone says "Yes, but..." - just because someone is a contrarian doesn't make them right. Galileo was right because he was a more honest scientist than the fact-deniers around him. That's exactly where we are today - with the difference that the fact-deniers are the ones running the climate change denial PR outfits and think tanks.

oaeu098UEOnth 7y ago
Absolutely, they deny facts like natural climate oscillations, or that CO2 is actually a good thing for plants, and thus, for humans.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  You do realize that water "is a good thing for humans", but that drowning is still deadly, right?

rapnie 7y ago

There has been a lot of criticism on Limits to Growth, but there has also been a lot of positive review in recent years e.g.: > "In 2008, Graham Turner of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) found that the observed historical data from 1970 to 2000 closely match the simulated results of the "standard run" limits of growth model for almost all the outputs reported. "The comparison is well within uncertainty bounds of nearly all the data in terms of both magnitude and the trends over time." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth#Positive_reviews https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth#Positiv...