4 ms·

We have to acknowledge the fact that the denialism concerning climate change extends from it being strongly linked politically. That's the reason we see so muc

We have to acknowledge the fact that the denialism concerning climate change extends from it being strongly linked politically. That's the reason we see so much effort in this thread concerning "valuing other opinions" or "people believed the earth was flat". Since the naysayers aren't interested in coming up with legitimate alternative models, the only refuge is to downplay "consensus" and fight to have uninformed individuals on the same level of discourse as the climatology community. So while the science is solid, you aren't going to get someone to believe something they are against from the onset.

wolverine876 5y ago
> Since the naysayers aren't interested in coming up with legitimate alternative models, the only refuge is to downplay "consensus" It's important to note that this pattern plays out for many issues. It's reactionary politics and rhetoric, which is simply against things and for nothing - to deny: climate change, covid, racism, etc.
- paisawalla 5y ago
  It's important to note that this pattern plays out for many issues. It's progressive politics and rhetoric, which is simply for any change and refuses to admit that anything is ever good enough, has natural causes, or is a completed process - to blindly accept claims of: climate change, covid, racism, etc.
  - cannabis_sam 5y ago
    “Non-movement is the same and as valid as movement!” Sure, good luck with that, but why impose it on others?
  - KennyBlanken 5y ago
    Strange that both the coal and oil industries (independently) produced internal documents in the mid 1960's agreeing that climate change science was sound and thus it was a particularly serious threat to their business.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Are you saying that they have not supported climate change denial?
  - lashloch 5y ago
    This cute comment would have more bite if you'd actually managed to write in a straight logical line like the parent comment. Of course, imitation-but-worse is a reactionary staple.
    - paisawalla 5y ago
      This is probably my favorite response, because I literally made the exact point as the original comment. Any difference in the quality of the argument, such as it is, is purely invention on your part. Which of course, is the point: it's a stupid argument however you look at it. If you up vote it, it's only because it confirms your priors, not because of the quality of the point (non-existent).
Lutger 5y ago
This is a well known PR tactic, described in Merchants of Doubt and most recently in The New Climate War by Michael Mann. Interesting enough, this tactic can also be deployed on strong believers in climate change in several ways. For example, the very idea of a carbon footprint is invented by BP in order to shift responsibility towards the consumer, which deflates pressure on corporate action and regulation. The gun lobby, tobacco companies and softdrink industries have employed similar campaigns - such as inventing recycling. The very term 'climate change' is a friendlier and successful rebranding of global warming by the way. It suggests something natural, maybe even benign. That's why I prefer climate crisis. Another example is the idea that renewables are not 'green', like wind turbines kill birds, EV requires lithium etc. The proposed alternative is always either some future technology or a complete non-starter like dismantling capitalism and just stop using electricity. Yet another tactic is to make the case that we are doomed and no action can be taken. All these serve the interests of the fossil barons very well as they divide, cast doubt on, delay or otherwise frustrate the efforts to genuinely decarbonize our economy. Thus, one needs to be careful to distinguish between actual science and marketing disguised as science, or more insidious: bits of science employed in a psyop campaign.
- vegetablepotpie 5y ago
  If anyone is interested in the details of the history and mechanics of fossil fuel propaganda, this [0] podcast is a good resource. [0] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/drilled/id1439735906?i=1000436041593 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/drilled/id1439735906?i...
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  I would argue that the recyling example is one that they're still winning the PR war on, very similar to the carbon footprint one. Recycling is green and economic. This is the scientific consensus and also blatantly logical. Anyone arguing otherwise has consistently been in the pocket of big business or political parties that thrive on letting big business do whatever they want. We have decades of evidence of that. But the most common story you hear about recyling is that it's a pointless greenwash and the alternative is ..... the status quo. Constant stories of how it went wrong in some case, or got subverted by those same big companies and the moral always seems to be "don't try to do green stuff, it's all a scam and/or silly hippies who do more damage than good", which is exactly the "doomed" strategy you mention. Almost certainly a whole bunch of people reading this comment have a direct mental connection of "recycling" -> "scam", "waste", "not even good for the planet" similar to what has been cultivated for wind turbines, solar, EVs etc though most of those seem to be losing steam faster, probably only because those industries have their own lobby groups now.

wolverine876 5y ago

> Since the naysayers aren't interested in coming up with legitimate alternative models, the only refuge is to downplay "consensus" It's important to note that this pattern plays out for many issues. It's reactionary politics and rhetoric, which is simply against things and for nothing - to deny: climate change, covid, racism, etc.

paisawalla 5y ago
It's important to note that this pattern plays out for many issues. It's progressive politics and rhetoric, which is simply for any change and refuses to admit that anything is ever good enough, has natural causes, or is a completed process - to blindly accept claims of: climate change, covid, racism, etc.
- cannabis_sam 5y ago
  “Non-movement is the same and as valid as movement!” Sure, good luck with that, but why impose it on others?
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  Strange that both the coal and oil industries (independently) produced internal documents in the mid 1960's agreeing that climate change science was sound and thus it was a particularly serious threat to their business.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Are you saying that they have not supported climate change denial?
- lashloch 5y ago
  This cute comment would have more bite if you'd actually managed to write in a straight logical line like the parent comment. Of course, imitation-but-worse is a reactionary staple.
  - paisawalla 5y ago
    This is probably my favorite response, because I literally made the exact point as the original comment. Any difference in the quality of the argument, such as it is, is purely invention on your part. Which of course, is the point: it's a stupid argument however you look at it. If you up vote it, it's only because it confirms your priors, not because of the quality of the point (non-existent).

Lutger 5y ago

This is a well known PR tactic, described in Merchants of Doubt and most recently in The New Climate War by Michael Mann. Interesting enough, this tactic can also be deployed on strong believers in climate change in several ways. For example, the very idea of a carbon footprint is invented by BP in order to shift responsibility towards the consumer, which deflates pressure on corporate action and regulation. The gun lobby, tobacco companies and softdrink industries have employed similar campaigns - such as inventing recycling. The very term 'climate change' is a friendlier and successful rebranding of global warming by the way. It suggests something natural, maybe even benign. That's why I prefer climate crisis. Another example is the idea that renewables are not 'green', like wind turbines kill birds, EV requires lithium etc. The proposed alternative is always either some future technology or a complete non-starter like dismantling capitalism and just stop using electricity. Yet another tactic is to make the case that we are doomed and no action can be taken. All these serve the interests of the fossil barons very well as they divide, cast doubt on, delay or otherwise frustrate the efforts to genuinely decarbonize our economy. Thus, one needs to be careful to distinguish between actual science and marketing disguised as science, or more insidious: bits of science employed in a psyop campaign.

vegetablepotpie 5y ago
If anyone is interested in the details of the history and mechanics of fossil fuel propaganda, this [0] podcast is a good resource. [0] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/drilled/id1439735906?i=1000436041593 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/drilled/id1439735906?i...
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
I would argue that the recyling example is one that they're still winning the PR war on, very similar to the carbon footprint one. Recycling is green and economic. This is the scientific consensus and also blatantly logical. Anyone arguing otherwise has consistently been in the pocket of big business or political parties that thrive on letting big business do whatever they want. We have decades of evidence of that. But the most common story you hear about recyling is that it's a pointless greenwash and the alternative is ..... the status quo. Constant stories of how it went wrong in some case, or got subverted by those same big companies and the moral always seems to be "don't try to do green stuff, it's all a scam and/or silly hippies who do more damage than good", which is exactly the "doomed" strategy you mention. Almost certainly a whole bunch of people reading this comment have a direct mental connection of "recycling" -> "scam", "waste", "not even good for the planet" similar to what has been cultivated for wind turbines, solar, EVs etc though most of those seem to be losing steam faster, probably only because those industries have their own lobby groups now.