3 ms·

There are quite a lot of articles about climate change on The Economist and as far as I know none of them denies it. But of course because they posted somethin

There are quite a lot of articles about climate change on The Economist and as far as I know none of them denies it. But of course because they posted something that you don't agree with, they must be propaganda.

p1necone 4y ago
Climate change denial has moved beyond explicitly denying its existence at this point. At least the kind that can sway otherwise reasonably intelligent people. > It's not happening > Okay maybe it's happening but we didn't cause it > Okay maybe it's happening and maybe we did cause it but we shouldn't do anything about it because insert easily debunkable bullshit about electric vehicles and renewables being impractical or whataboutism involving other countries here. <== WE ARE HERE > Okay it's happening and we caused it but it's too late to do anything now so lets just keep the status quo.
- Gud 4y ago
  And where did the Economist do this? When was the Economist ever denying climate change?
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Does their glowing obituary of Nigel Lawson count: > His frequent presence on the bbc, arguing against the reality of man-made climate change or, alternatively, that a bit of warming was desirable, depending on the day, outraged environmentalists and scientists alike. https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/04/04/nigel-lawson-was-the-economic-brain-of-thatcherism https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/04/04/nigel-lawson-wa...
    - jdminhbg 4y ago
      Seems like no, it does not count, because they're explicitly saying he was wrong: > the reality of man-made climate change
      - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        Someone can question the reality of something that isn't real. So they've not even managed that low bar you've set for them. We have to assume their opinion on this. We know it outrages environmentalists and scientists, but apparently the economists opinion is not relevant or worth stating explicitly?
        jdminhbg 4y ago
        I mean, it's an obituary. They don't really need to spend an additional paragraph about their opinion on climate change, given that they have articles that are about climate change all over the rest of the magazine. The idea that they're secretly climate change deniers because they don't spend as much time on it as you'd like in an obituary is honestly slightly crazy.
green_man_lives 4y ago
Propaganda != something I don't like It's propaganda because the primary goal of the economist is to convince you of something (that the status quo/neoliberalism should be enforced). Propaganda also doesn't mean nothing in this article was non-factual. Mother Jones also has a lot of 100% factual articles, but their main goal as a propaganda outlet is to convince people to become socialists. I don't think that belongs on HN either, even though I love Mother Jones. Is there value in posting a pure propaganda piece to HN? I don't think so, not unless the point of the post is to practice media literacy by looking at propaganda academically. I think it would be more interesting to post something more scientific without the narrative bias. More room for debate beyond the confines of what the author wants to push. Also I never said The Economist denies climate change. They disparage green energy. All the people replying to my original comment never actually addressed the point I was making, they immediately jumped to "but the Economist doesn't do climate denialism" and got mad at my usage of the word propaganda Either way, this article is crap and so is most of what The Economist comes up with because it--again--is propaganda.

p1necone 4y ago

Climate change denial has moved beyond explicitly denying its existence at this point. At least the kind that can sway otherwise reasonably intelligent people. > It's not happening > Okay maybe it's happening but we didn't cause it > Okay maybe it's happening and maybe we did cause it but we shouldn't do anything about it because insert easily debunkable bullshit about electric vehicles and renewables being impractical or whataboutism involving other countries here. <== WE ARE HERE > Okay it's happening and we caused it but it's too late to do anything now so lets just keep the status quo.

Gud 4y ago
And where did the Economist do this? When was the Economist ever denying climate change?
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Does their glowing obituary of Nigel Lawson count: > His frequent presence on the bbc, arguing against the reality of man-made climate change or, alternatively, that a bit of warming was desirable, depending on the day, outraged environmentalists and scientists alike. https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/04/04/nigel-lawson-was-the-economic-brain-of-thatcherism https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/04/04/nigel-lawson-wa...
  - jdminhbg 4y ago
    Seems like no, it does not count, because they're explicitly saying he was wrong: > the reality of man-made climate change
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      Someone can question the reality of something that isn't real. So they've not even managed that low bar you've set for them. We have to assume their opinion on this. We know it outrages environmentalists and scientists, but apparently the economists opinion is not relevant or worth stating explicitly?
      - jdminhbg 4y ago
        I mean, it's an obituary. They don't really need to spend an additional paragraph about their opinion on climate change, given that they have articles that are about climate change all over the rest of the magazine. The idea that they're secretly climate change deniers because they don't spend as much time on it as you'd like in an obituary is honestly slightly crazy.

green_man_lives 4y ago

Propaganda != something I don't like It's propaganda because the primary goal of the economist is to convince you of something (that the status quo/neoliberalism should be enforced). Propaganda also doesn't mean nothing in this article was non-factual. Mother Jones also has a lot of 100% factual articles, but their main goal as a propaganda outlet is to convince people to become socialists. I don't think that belongs on HN either, even though I love Mother Jones. Is there value in posting a pure propaganda piece to HN? I don't think so, not unless the point of the post is to practice media literacy by looking at propaganda academically. I think it would be more interesting to post something more scientific without the narrative bias. More room for debate beyond the confines of what the author wants to push. Also I never said The Economist denies climate change. They disparage green energy. All the people replying to my original comment never actually addressed the point I was making, they immediately jumped to "but the Economist doesn't do climate denialism" and got mad at my usage of the word propaganda Either way, this article is crap and so is most of what The Economist comes up with because it--again--is propaganda.