4 ms·

It’s heartbreaking to learn how many were (& still are) involved in denying reality. [1][2][3] Crazy to think we’ve had experimental evidence of CO2’s warming

by ahevia 5y ago

It’s heartbreaking to learn how many were (& still are) involved in denying reality. [1][2][3] Crazy to think we’ve had experimental evidence of CO2’s warming effect since late 1800s! [4] Yet as evidence began mounting in the mid-late 1900s of any problems, the cultural or political will to take action was struck down or weakened by so many parties. [2][3] I’m optimistic we’ll get through this. Will be interesting to see if the recent shift in the financial/insurance sector to begin factoring in climate risk will sway more denialist over [1]:https://www.npr.org/2021/07/01/1012138741/exxon-lobbyist-caught-on-video-talks-about-undermining-bidens-climate-push https://www.npr.org/2021/07/01/1012138741/exxon-lobbyist-cau... [2]:https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/ending-the-climate-crisis/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-change/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline/ https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/ending-the-climate-crisis/exx... [3]:https://drillednews.com/podcast-2/ https://drillednews.com/podcast-2/ [4]:https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Tyndall https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Tyndall

rapnie 5y ago
> will sway more denialist over I wonder if "denialist" is still the best term to describe. Maybe for those who've been truly misled. But I can't help but feel that a large part of those among them that could affect real change know very well what's going on. They are just confident (or determined) it will not impact their life, and others will pay the price.
- HamburgerEmoji 5y ago
  Denialist really is a bad term. It's meant to invoke a parallel to holocaust denial, and assumes the correctness of one's own view. I might as well call you a denialist. It's also begging the question to say your adversaries have been misled; I'm on the opposite side of the fence from you, and I think you're the one who's been misled. So that's a waste of time. This stuff about how I and other people who think like I do just don't care about the future or other people, that's nonsense. That's just thinking "oh, well, perhaps they haven't been misled, perhaps they're just bad people." Lazy. The real cause of disagreement is taste about what measurable artifacts a person deems important, how they weigh them, etc.

by ahevia 5y ago

rapnie 5y ago

> will sway more denialist over I wonder if "denialist" is still the best term to describe. Maybe for those who've been truly misled. But I can't help but feel that a large part of those among them that could affect real change know very well what's going on. They are just confident (or determined) it will not impact their life, and others will pay the price.

HamburgerEmoji 5y ago
Denialist really is a bad term. It's meant to invoke a parallel to holocaust denial, and assumes the correctness of one's own view. I might as well call you a denialist. It's also begging the question to say your adversaries have been misled; I'm on the opposite side of the fence from you, and I think you're the one who's been misled. So that's a waste of time. This stuff about how I and other people who think like I do just don't care about the future or other people, that's nonsense. That's just thinking "oh, well, perhaps they haven't been misled, perhaps they're just bad people." Lazy. The real cause of disagreement is taste about what measurable artifacts a person deems important, how they weigh them, etc.