4 ms·

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/ https://news.harvard

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-a... I have a dark fascination with the inevitable industry-friendly responses you find on a post like this. I always wonder if the people know that the industry says very different things behind closed doors than they do in congress.

nvm0n2 3y ago
It's the other way around. Huge quantities of climate related claims and journalism are bought and paid for. Supposedly "non profit" organizations are the most corrupt of all. https://www.ap.org/ap-in-the-news/2022/climate-grant-illustrates-growth-in-philanthropy-funded-news https://www.ap.org/ap-in-the-news/2022/climate-grant-illustr... The Associated Press said Tuesday that it is assigning more than two dozen journalists across the world to cover climate issues, in the news organization’s largest single expansion paid for through philanthropic grants. The announcement illustrates how philanthropy has swiftly become an important new funding source for journalism — at the AP and elsewhere — at a time when the industry’s financial outlook has been otherwise bleak. For many years, Journalists and philanthropists were more wary of each other. News organizations were concerned about maintaining independence and, until the past two decades, financially secure enough not to need help. Philanthropists didn’t see the need, or how journalists could help them achieve their goals. Nonprofit news organizations like ProPublica and Texas Tribune led the way in changing minds Both sides had things to learn. For Carovillano, it was getting used to the idea that funders weren’t just being generous; they had their own goals to achieve. “This is a mutually beneficial arrangement,” he said. Note that all 20 of the new hires are tasked to "focus on climate change’s impact" - i.e. impact is assumed, and then they go looking for stories to support this narrative. Something they explicitly aren't funded to investigate: whether the science is robust. As always, the loudest shrieking about corruption comes from the most corrupt people.
- Julesman 3y ago
  This is not, in any way, a direct response to my comment.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    Sure it does. Most of the responses on posts like these are simply aping industry talking points, where the "industry" in question is the academic/philanthropic complex. They spend vast amounts on propaganda to ensure public support for their work.
    - Julesman 3y ago
      I wouldn't say most. And I'm no fan of echo chambers. We have to expect a certain amount of industry support in any mainstream social context. The notion that the problem is the "academic/philanthropic complex" comes directly out of the same industry imagineering and is a common misdirect providing talking points that lead away from industrial disruption. In other words, it sounds to me like you (or to be fair and more accurate: people who use similar arguments) are critical of mainstream misdirection but possibly unaware that they've also been just as duped. In basic terms this point works, otherwise it wouldn't be a good ruse. The academy is easily corrupted and non-profits are mostly total shit. These are not trivial points to make in the picture. But they aren't paramount at all. They are not the cause and changing them will not solve our problem.
      - nvm0n2 3y ago
        I made that term up on the spot, but you seem pretty sure I must just be mentally Xeroxing things I heard elsewhere. But it's not the case. I reached my conclusions based on my own research and by discovering things like the AP story, where the AP themselves express extreme discomfort with the level of corruption the org has stooped to. It wasn't an oil company that told me that.

nvm0n2 3y ago

It's the other way around. Huge quantities of climate related claims and journalism are bought and paid for. Supposedly "non profit" organizations are the most corrupt of all. https://www.ap.org/ap-in-the-news/2022/climate-grant-illustrates-growth-in-philanthropy-funded-news https://www.ap.org/ap-in-the-news/2022/climate-grant-illustr... The Associated Press said Tuesday that it is assigning more than two dozen journalists across the world to cover climate issues, in the news organization’s largest single expansion paid for through philanthropic grants. The announcement illustrates how philanthropy has swiftly become an important new funding source for journalism — at the AP and elsewhere — at a time when the industry’s financial outlook has been otherwise bleak. For many years, Journalists and philanthropists were more wary of each other. News organizations were concerned about maintaining independence and, until the past two decades, financially secure enough not to need help. Philanthropists didn’t see the need, or how journalists could help them achieve their goals. Nonprofit news organizations like ProPublica and Texas Tribune led the way in changing minds Both sides had things to learn. For Carovillano, it was getting used to the idea that funders weren’t just being generous; they had their own goals to achieve. “This is a mutually beneficial arrangement,” he said. Note that all 20 of the new hires are tasked to "focus on climate change’s impact" - i.e. impact is assumed, and then they go looking for stories to support this narrative. Something they explicitly aren't funded to investigate: whether the science is robust. As always, the loudest shrieking about corruption comes from the most corrupt people.

Julesman 3y ago
This is not, in any way, a direct response to my comment.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  Sure it does. Most of the responses on posts like these are simply aping industry talking points, where the "industry" in question is the academic/philanthropic complex. They spend vast amounts on propaganda to ensure public support for their work.
  - Julesman 3y ago
    I wouldn't say most. And I'm no fan of echo chambers. We have to expect a certain amount of industry support in any mainstream social context. The notion that the problem is the "academic/philanthropic complex" comes directly out of the same industry imagineering and is a common misdirect providing talking points that lead away from industrial disruption. In other words, it sounds to me like you (or to be fair and more accurate: people who use similar arguments) are critical of mainstream misdirection but possibly unaware that they've also been just as duped. In basic terms this point works, otherwise it wouldn't be a good ruse. The academy is easily corrupted and non-profits are mostly total shit. These are not trivial points to make in the picture. But they aren't paramount at all. They are not the cause and changing them will not solve our problem.
    - nvm0n2 3y ago
      I made that term up on the spot, but you seem pretty sure I must just be mentally Xeroxing things I heard elsewhere. But it's not the case. I reached my conclusions based on my own research and by discovering things like the AP story, where the AP themselves express extreme discomfort with the level of corruption the org has stooped to. It wasn't an oil company that told me that.