3 ms·

Why are people looking for conspiracies where there are clearly none? Climate science is incredibly complicated and it took a long time to get the evidence to a

Why are people looking for conspiracies where there are clearly none? Climate science is incredibly complicated and it took a long time to get the evidence to a level where we can actually consider making drastic economic changes to fight it - what did the author expect GM and Ford of 50 years ago (and climate science of 50 years ago) to do?

jhloa2 6y ago
Seems reasonable to expect them to not actively lobby against environmental regulations.
- jniedrauer 6y ago
  It's not like there's a lack of historical precedent for a profit motive causing them to work against the interests of the general population. See also: Streetcars[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >It's not like there's a lack of historical precedent So what? You don't get to assume something because something completely unrelated happened.
  - jmcqk6 6y ago
    >It's not like there's a lack of historical precedent for a profit motive causing them to work against the interests of the general population So that makes it okay? Perhaps the thing that needs to change is our expectations of corporations.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >Seems reasonable to expect them to not actively lobby against environmental regulations. Why is it reasonable to not lobby against environmental regulations? What if the environmental regulations are unreasonable? For example, 'The Green New Deal' is 90% batshit crazy.
epistasis 6y ago
The "conspiracies" are well documented. See, for example, season 1 of the Drilled podcast: https://www.criticalfrequency.org/drilled https://www.criticalfrequency.org/drilled It's all out there in the memos from these companies.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  Except they were still working within the constraints of climate science of 50 years ago - which was not at a level of credence where you can push drastic policy changes to the economy. That's what I meant.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
grenoire 6y ago
Reposting my comment from an unrelated thread, on this: "I think there is too much information around for the average person to filter and process and digest. All three are important parts of living in a society and it looks to me like even with e.g. economic issues alone, it's just very hard for (to be fair) anybody to keep up. In turn, people reach out to conspiracy theories to simplify the world around them with obvious answers and explanations."
bena 6y ago
50 years ago was 1970. In 1980 Cosmos: A Personal Voyage came out. A companion book came out the next year. In it, Carl Sagan warns about the dangers of global warming. We knew. Climate science 50 years ago was good enough to identify this as a problem. Al Gore decided to be Clinton's running mate in part due to how HW Bush was handling environmental issues. Issues he was bringing up in Congress since 1976 when he was first elected. Once again, we knew. We also knew that the best time to get a handle on the problem was then.
jeffbee 6y ago
Atmospheric sciences were already very advanced in 1970 and models published in the 70s were quite accurate on warming through the year 2000. Models published in the 80s and later have been very accurate up to the present day.
notmadnomad 6y ago
In times of lack of leadership, it's easier to blame a mythical "them" rather than confront specific faulty, corrupt, incompetent bureaucrats. Furthermore, it provides a sense of tribal community in uncertain times. It's moot at this point because it doesn't really change anything now or in the future but reveal additional evil corporate actions. The only things that can and must change the situation are: 1. Global GHG reductions 2. Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), primarily from oceanic biologically-farmed sources similar to kelp or phytoplankton.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

jhloa2 6y ago

Seems reasonable to expect them to not actively lobby against environmental regulations.

jniedrauer 6y ago
It's not like there's a lack of historical precedent for a profit motive causing them to work against the interests of the general population. See also: Streetcars[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >It's not like there's a lack of historical precedent So what? You don't get to assume something because something completely unrelated happened.
- jmcqk6 6y ago
  >It's not like there's a lack of historical precedent for a profit motive causing them to work against the interests of the general population So that makes it okay? Perhaps the thing that needs to change is our expectations of corporations.
macspoofing 6y ago
>Seems reasonable to expect them to not actively lobby against environmental regulations. Why is it reasonable to not lobby against environmental regulations? What if the environmental regulations are unreasonable? For example, 'The Green New Deal' is 90% batshit crazy.

epistasis 6y ago

The "conspiracies" are well documented. See, for example, season 1 of the Drilled podcast: https://www.criticalfrequency.org/drilled https://www.criticalfrequency.org/drilled It's all out there in the memos from these companies.

macspoofing 6y ago
Except they were still working within the constraints of climate science of 50 years ago - which was not at a level of credence where you can push drastic policy changes to the economy. That's what I meant.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

grenoire 6y ago

Reposting my comment from an unrelated thread, on this: "I think there is too much information around for the average person to filter and process and digest. All three are important parts of living in a society and it looks to me like even with e.g. economic issues alone, it's just very hard for (to be fair) anybody to keep up. In turn, people reach out to conspiracy theories to simplify the world around them with obvious answers and explanations."

bena 6y ago

50 years ago was 1970. In 1980 Cosmos: A Personal Voyage came out. A companion book came out the next year. In it, Carl Sagan warns about the dangers of global warming. We knew. Climate science 50 years ago was good enough to identify this as a problem. Al Gore decided to be Clinton's running mate in part due to how HW Bush was handling environmental issues. Issues he was bringing up in Congress since 1976 when he was first elected. Once again, we knew. We also knew that the best time to get a handle on the problem was then.

jeffbee 6y ago

Atmospheric sciences were already very advanced in 1970 and models published in the 70s were quite accurate on warming through the year 2000. Models published in the 80s and later have been very accurate up to the present day.

notmadnomad 6y ago

In times of lack of leadership, it's easier to blame a mythical "them" rather than confront specific faulty, corrupt, incompetent bureaucrats. Furthermore, it provides a sense of tribal community in uncertain times. It's moot at this point because it doesn't really change anything now or in the future but reveal additional evil corporate actions. The only things that can and must change the situation are: 1. Global GHG reductions 2. Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), primarily from oceanic biologically-farmed sources similar to kelp or phytoplankton.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]