Exxon Uses Big Tobacco's Playbook To Downplay the Climate Crisis, Says Study (cnn.com) 134
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN Business: For decades, ExxonMobil has deployed Big Tobacco-like propaganda to downplay the gravity of the climate crisis, shift blame onto consumers and protect its own interests, according to a Harvard University study published Thursday. The peer-reviewed study found that Exxon (XOM) publicly equates demand for energy to an indefinite need for fossil fuels, casting the company as merely a passive supplier working to meet that demand. The study used machine learning and algorithms to uncover trends in more than 200 public and internal Exxon documents between 1972 and 2019. "These patterns mimic the tobacco industry's documented strategy of shifting responsibility away from corporations -- which knowingly sold a deadly product while denying its harms -- and onto consumers," the study concludes. "ExxonMobil has used language to subtly yet systematically frame public discourse."
The Harvard study described "propaganda tactics of the fossil fuels industry" aimed at downplaying the climate crisis. For example, the authors said that after the 1999 merger of Exxon and Mobil, the companies began saying in public documents such as paid "advertorials" that "climate change was a 'risk,' rather than a reality." Prior to the merger, "risk" of climate change was only mentioned once in Exxon's public communications, the study said. From 2000 and beyond, it appeared 46 times, the study found, adding that no other term was more associated with climate change in the company's public statements. The study notes that "this scientific hedging strategy" was repeatedly used by the tobacco industry in the 1990s.
Moreover, the study found that Exxon has framed the debate around consumer energy "demand" to build a "fossil fuel savior" framework that "downplays the reality and seriousness of climate change, normalizes fossil fuel lock-in and individualizes responsibility." [Geoffrey Supran, a Harvard research associate and one of the study's authors] told CNN Business this strategy is "effectively gaslighting the public into thinking there is no alternative, making the blame pill that Exxon is feeding the public easier to swallow." Supran said it's "certainly true" that modern society continues to rely mostly on fossil fuels, but added that Exxon's decades-long "disinformation" campaign is a central reason why it still does. "We are passively guilty, born into a fossil fuel society," he said. "But companies like Exxon are actively guilty for working to keep society the way it is."
The Harvard study described "propaganda tactics of the fossil fuels industry" aimed at downplaying the climate crisis. For example, the authors said that after the 1999 merger of Exxon and Mobil, the companies began saying in public documents such as paid "advertorials" that "climate change was a 'risk,' rather than a reality." Prior to the merger, "risk" of climate change was only mentioned once in Exxon's public communications, the study said. From 2000 and beyond, it appeared 46 times, the study found, adding that no other term was more associated with climate change in the company's public statements. The study notes that "this scientific hedging strategy" was repeatedly used by the tobacco industry in the 1990s.
Moreover, the study found that Exxon has framed the debate around consumer energy "demand" to build a "fossil fuel savior" framework that "downplays the reality and seriousness of climate change, normalizes fossil fuel lock-in and individualizes responsibility." [Geoffrey Supran, a Harvard research associate and one of the study's authors] told CNN Business this strategy is "effectively gaslighting the public into thinking there is no alternative, making the blame pill that Exxon is feeding the public easier to swallow." Supran said it's "certainly true" that modern society continues to rely mostly on fossil fuels, but added that Exxon's decades-long "disinformation" campaign is a central reason why it still does. "We are passively guilty, born into a fossil fuel society," he said. "But companies like Exxon are actively guilty for working to keep society the way it is."
The authors object to the framing (Score:3, Interesting)
The authors object to the framing words used by the energy industry when discussing matters related to climate change.
Phrases like these from "advertorials" are apparently examples of this bad framing.
"To meet this demand, while addressing the risks posed by rising greenhouse gas emissions, we'll need to call upon a broad mix of energy sources"
"[T]he cars and trucks we drive aren't just vehicles, they're opportunities to solve the world's energy and environmental challenges"
"We're supporting research and technology efforts, curtailing our own greenhouse gas emissions and helping customers scale back their emissions of carbon dioxide"
"We have invested $1.5 billion since 2004 in activities to increase energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are on track to improve energy efficiency in our worldwide refining and chemical operations"
And so on. Personally I don't see anything wrong with any of these statements.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I don't see anything wrong with any of these statements.
"I can't see the forest because of all these damn trees!"
Re: (Score:1)
"curtailing our own greenhouse gas emissions and helping customers scale back their emissions of carbon dioxide" is not exactly reminiscent of Big Tobacco, unless you think the entire green industry is reminiscent of Big Tobacco.
Not guilty. (Score:3, Insightful)
"We are passively guilty..."
No. No, we are not guilty when we are born.
No-one is responsible for the actions of their ancestors before they are born or when they are young.
Don't try to gaslight everyone born into a developed economy.
Later, when you have control of you own actions, then you can take responsibility too.
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed.
But when you are born into an unfair advantage, if you don't everything you can to correct that unfairness, then you ARE guilty.
"I was born standing on your neck. What am I supposed to do about it?"
Not responsible (Score:1)
Agreed.
But when you are born into an unfair advantage, if you don't everything you can to correct that unfairness, then you ARE guilty.
"I was born standing on your neck. What am I supposed to do about it?"
Out system is a set of hierarchys of competition which is in principle legally fair and open to everyone, and in fact people of every stripe have been able to rise to the top of every one of those hierarchys.
If you can point to a specific rule or legal principle that is unfair to someone of a specific nature, then that indicates corruption in the system and we should change that rule to become more fair.
Inequity of outcome does not imply an unfair advantage, however. We allow people to make poor life choice
Re: (Score:1)
Well - how about this: rich people can afford better lawyers, who are more likely to "win" disputes, regardless of right and wrong. That's unfair.
Re: (Score:1)
How about this - if Elon Musk had been born as a poor woman in Thailand - he would never have been able to become a billionaire. That's unfair.
Re: (Score:1)
How about this - if you're black, you're more likely to be murdered. That's unfair.
Re: (Score:2)
Murdered mainly by other blacks though.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes. As I mention in the other thread that brought this up - the cause of black violence is poverty (not genetics.). And poverty is caused mainly by historical injustice.
So, yes, it is unfair that blacks are both more likely to murder and be murdered.
Re: (Score:2)
It's due more to culture than poverty. Every ethnicity in the US has poor people, poor families, and poor neighborhoods but in those areas violence doesn't skyrocket like it does in predominantly black neighborhoods. Coincidentally, most of those are in cites where the Democrats have been elected mayor for decades and/or had Democrat governors for decades. Black kids are bullied into joining gangs. Black girls are pressured to get pregnant like their friends did, drop out of high school, and live off we
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not interested in getting into these details with you.
There is evidence that fossil fuels don't cause global warming. There is evidence that smoking does not cause cancer. And there is evidence that poverty does not cause violence.
I choose not to get into these sorts of debates. Sorry.
Re: Not responsible (Score:1)
I'm not interested in getting into these details with you.
Bingo!
Re: (Score:1)
It's true. The evidence that smoking doesn't cause cancer. The evidence that global warming is made up. The evidence that Obama is Muslim. The evidence that Biden stole the election are all as interesting as the evidence that Xenu exists.
I'm going to retire from these threads. You all take care now.
Re: (Score:1)
That's a good point. But I fear you're claiming that there's a genetic predisposition to the trend.
In fact, all races are more violent when they fall into poverty. Whites actually more so. But it is true, blacks are disproportionately impoverished.
Now - why do you think that is?
Re: (Score:1)
How about this - women are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse than men. That's unfair.
Re: (Score:1)
How about this?
That's because men just don't run to the police every time a woman grabs the man's ass, crotch, chest, or biceps. Unless she becomes a crazy stalker, men tell the female criminal "Don't touch me again" and leave it at that. And also unlike women, they don't run to anti-social media and scream the R-word every time a woman simply gives the man a benign non-sexual compliment about his hair/clothes/beard/tan/whatever. Nowadays those assaults happens more to men than women.
Re: (Score:1)
So you believe that women are NOT raped more than men?
Friend, I'm afraid I think you're crazy. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Re: Not responsible (Score:1)
We're not interested in getting into these details with you.
Statistically, argument doesn't hold up [Re: not r (Score:3)
Out system is a set of hierarchys of competition which is in principle legally fair and open to everyone,
In principle. I like that principle.
and in fact people of every stripe have been able to rise to the top of every one of those hierarchys.
A few. Statistically, however: no. There is a large barrier to poor people.
If you can point to a specific rule or legal principle that is unfair to someone of a specific nature,
OK. Has Harvard set tuition at zero yet? Yale? Any of the Ivy leagues?
No? That's a barrier to people whose parents don't have money to pay two hundred thousand dollars in tuition (not to mention a similar amount just to live in Cambridge.)
Yes, there are a small number of scholarships (and a huge number of loans... which cannot be discharged by bankruptcy.) But poor people have to compete for
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, I know many people feel this way. I urge you to think about the people you're standing on.
Re: (Score:3)
That's imply not true. What you seem to want to believe is that you can't be responsible for any advantage you acquire by dint of birth status. Maybe not the instant you're born, sure, but you can certainly be considered guilty of using this advantage you didn't do anything to acquire. Your splitting hairs is that it's not fair to be blamed for having it - but it's fair game to be criticized for using it.
I know people will use advantages. I know how the world works. It simply doesn't absolve you from critic
Re: (Score:1)
Reality doesn`t care what your beliefs are, you are guilty that guy ate something he wasn`t supposed to.
Re: (Score:2)
Reality doesn`t care what your beliefs are, you are guilty that guy ate something he wasn`t supposed to.
What I find unfair is the fact that Eve usually gets the blame.
Yahweh told Adam not to eat the apple. He didn't tell Eve!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"We are passively guilty..."
"No. No, we are not guilty when we are born.
Not according to Christianity. That whole "Original Sin" thing the child inherited from Adam and Eve and the Fall From Grace.
That is part of what Christian Baptisms are for, to "cleanse the Original Sin" and ensure that the child doesn't go to Hell if they die before they can consciously accept Jesus as their savior.
Useful idiots ... (Score:4, Funny)
Exxon Uses Big Tobacco's Playbook To Downplay the Climate Crisis, Says Study ...
In other words, they recruited legions upon legions of useful idiots to preach the gospel of fossil fuels and unleashed them on humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
-- Nix, Tomorrowland, 2015.
In many countries, a leader has loudly campaigned for climate-change policy and the voters have ignored him. eg. Al Gore, USA, 2000.
People listen to useful idiots because it excuses their selfishness.
Re:Useful idiots ... (Score:4, Informative)
In many countries, a leader has loudly campaigned for climate-change policy and the voters have ignored him. eg. Al Gore, USA, 2000.
Do note that the voters voted for Gore by a majority.
The electoral college was split, and required a Supreme Court decision to end the recounts, but in terms of the actual voters, they did not ignore him, they went for him by a solid majority.
(note that I don't use the phrase "he won". That is not how the system operates; "winning" means the electoral college, and when the recounts stopped, no, Gore didn't win. But your statement "the voters ignored him" really isn't true.)
Re:Useful idiots ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Many of the useful idiots are active here on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exxon Uses Big Tobacco's Playbook To Downplay the Climate Crisis, Says Study ...
In other words, they recruited legions upon legions of useful idiots to preach the gospel of fossil fuels and unleashed them on humanity.
Yes, like the Republican party and their foxy media friends.
They lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Result: invasion, power vacuum, huge middle eastern clusterfuck between Shia and Sunni muslims, IS terror, unimaginable human suffering.
They lied about the effects of CO2 and denied (or continue to deny) climate change. Result: droughts, floodings, stronger hurricans, wildfires, unimaginable human suffering.
They put a narcissistic idiot in the white house and lied about the election being stolen,
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. And quite a few of these useful idiots still have noticed or understood nothing, as a lot of the answers here show nicely.
Wouldn't it be better to use a tactic that works? (Score:1)
Big tobacco completely failed to achieve their aims. Let's see Exxon go the same way.
Re:Wouldn't it be better to use a tactic that work (Score:4, Insightful)
Big tobacco completely failed to achieve their aims.
Big tobacco successfully achieved their aims for decades, raking in billions of dollars while their products killed hundreds of thousands of people per year in the USA alone, and are still making a strong showing by demonizing any vaping that they do not control. The global tobacco market size was estimated at USD 932.11 billion in 2020 and is expected to reach USD 949.82 billion in 2021. Tell us again how that is total failure.
Re: (Score:1)
> Big tobacco completely failed to achieve their aims. Let's see Exxon go the same way.
In the end, no, but how long did they delay it? 20, 30 years?
Lucky thing was that smoking mainly kills the smoker. Climate change will affect everybody.
Oh, and BTW: their tactics still work in Asia.
Another 20, hell even 5 year delay before we all start taking this seriously is simply not an option.
As it was in Apollo 13 when they started blowing up: "We don't have that much time".
Re: Wouldn't it be better to use a tactic that wor (Score:1)
Another 20, hell even 5 year delay before we all start taking this seriously is simply not an option.
Continuing along not changing anything is not really an 'option' because no choice is needed to keep doing so.
Also it has been 'five more years until the disaster' for decades now. It's awrist-wringing hobby many seem to find rewarding.
And yeah, we know: "This time it's for real !!1!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the role of ever-increasing tobacco taxes [nih.gov]. While some debate whether this is a regressive tax on poverty (most smokers today are poor), it has been an effective driver for reducing smoking rates, and is particularly effective at preventing teenagers from starting in the first place. Aside from public health, it is
Everything is a crisis (Score:1)
Propaganda tactics galore.
Scare the shit out of enough members of the public about X, convince them that they're in mortal danger because of X, and they'll sign over their grandchildren to you.
The Islamists do it. They literally get people to strap bombs to their own children.
The lockdown brigade did it to the point that people were pulling knives on eachother in Cambridge MA over not wearing masks.
And now the eco-fascists are doing it to the point where many otherwise intelligent people think the seas will
Re: (Score:2)
I keep telling people this all the time. If there are those who are willing to blow themselves up for a cause, then there are others who will use similar tactics to threaten a population to cave to their demands. Fuck em.
Re: Everything is a crisis (Score:2)
I sincerely hope that at least one of the lessons our self-appointed elites learn from 2020 is that the dysfunction we tend to look down our noses at in the less civilized parts of the world do not disappear the moment you cross the American border.
They're attenuated here because for the most part people are fat and happy. But take away, or threaten to take away, that physical and material security and it all bubbles to the surface:
Superstitions
Tribalism
Conspiracy theories
Demogogy
I remember growing up in th
Re: (Score:2)
Merchants of Doubt (Score:3)
Same Researchers and Same PR Firms Too (Score:5, Interesting)
Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public [scientificamerican.com]
Big Oil and Big Tobacco use same tactics to mislead the public, says new report [electrek.co]
A Corporation Is Lying?! (Score:2)
I am shocked to hear that an American company would lie to the public in order to avoid outrage, shift blame, and evade legal liability.
Back when the tobacco companies lied, we fined them out of business, so everyone learned their lesson about deceit and manipulation. Oh, wait...
It's critically important... (Score:2)
...that ANY doubt about the canon of climate change be connected as quickly and firmly as possible to monied interests, creationists, flat earthers, and Donald Trump.
And bigfoot, if we can manage it.
It used to be that science welcomed legitimate questioning as a way to refine models and ultimately come to better answers, but zealots now characterize ANY questioning as "denialism".
No doubt there ARE monied interests like Exxon, etc funding and supporting attacks on the science.
But to simultaneously deny that
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be that science welcomed legitimate questioning as a way to refine models and ultimately come to better answers, but zealots now characterize ANY questioning as "denialism".
It turns out that the loud and persistent shouting of the actual denialists have simply drowned out the voices of any people who may be involved in actual legitimate questioning. When the denialists are shouting "Climate science is a hoax! The scientists are frauds! It's a political conspiracy!", none of the real scientists wants to be associated with them or anybody like them.
The real scientists do their questioning by putting error bars on estimates, gathering better data to improve understanding, and cr
Re: (Score:2)
Trillion. Not billion [Re:It's critically import.. (Score:2)
On this issue there are trillions of profits at stake on both sides. Don't for a second think otherwise.
Bullshit.
I don't know where you get your facts from, but you are wrong, and you are wrong by orders of magnitude.
The difference between millions, billions, and trillions is important. In English they sound so similar that people tend to go, "a million dollars, a trillion dollars, whatever;-- all I know is that they're both a lot of money", but that really isn't true. Last year, the ten largest oil companies together took in 2.9 trillion dollars in revenue.
Trillion.
Re: (Score:2)
The oil industry has $9 trillion in proven oil reserves, it sits on their balance sheets and they have told investors there will be a profit on it
yes, trillions
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between millions, billions, and trillions is important. In English they sound so similar that people tend to go, "a million dollars, a trillion dollars, whatever;-- all I know is that they're both a lot of money", but that really isn't true. Last year, the ten largest oil companies together took in 2.9 trillion dollars in revenue.
So about the same annual revenue (~3 trillion) as the global car market, of which EVs are only a small percentage so far, which was kind of my point.
Incidentally the global carbon credit market is worth 300 billion annually, and that is money for not even producing anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Incidentally the global carbon credit market is worth 300 billion annually, and that is money for not even producing anything.
Yeah, compare billions, trillions-- whatever... they're all "illions", right?
Re: (Score:2)
Exxon knew about climate change (Score:1)
In the 1970s and 1980s it employed top scientists to look into the issue and launched its own ambitious research program that empirically sampled carbon dioxide and built rigorous climate models. Exxon even spent more than $1 million on a tanker project that would tackle how much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. It was one of the bigge
Stop the presses (Score:1)
Left-wing organizations use same playbook to hype (Score:1)
Funny, left-wing organizations use the same playbook to hype global warming/the climate crisis as well. It's almost as if they're following a well-worn process to drum up public support.
A distraction, but not wrong (Score:2)
Individual responsibility is a distraction, but isn't wrong. Exxon isn't burning the fossil fuels to produce and sell us some other product, or burning it in a volcano lair just for the lulz. They're selling us the fossil fuels we pay for to use directly in our cars or indirectly in power plants and airliner/container ship engines. So ExxonMobil should really be switching to producing synthetic fuels using renewable energy, and it's their fault for not revealing that they knew the reality of climate change
Hard to disagree with their point though (Score:2)
Exxon are evil, and probably one of the worst western oil companies which is like the evil equivalent of a village idiot in a village full of idiots. However...
There are subtle differences between big tobacco and oil: Oil companies don't make oil addictive. They don't add nicotine in to them. And the use of their product actually brings a benefit to the human race (admittedly at the expense of the rest of the planet).
On the flip side tobacco serves no purpose. People request tobacco because the tobacco indu
The problem: we use 'fossil' fuels inefficiently (Score:2)
'Fossil' fuels are still the most energy bang for your buck. The amount of energy per unit amount of fuel is still far and away greater than any 'renewable'.
The problem is that the extraction, processing and use of such fuels has been consistently wasteful and inefficient.
Who's fault is that? We the consumer. To survive a company must make money but to do that they need a market. The market dictates the price. And we the market want everything as cheap as possible ... while also wanting it consequence
Re:Which is it, Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
You think that's bad? I've actually come across people who *claim* to want to feed the hungry but still don't support everything Soylent Industries have been doing.
Everyone should just join on side or the other on any issue and never criticise anyone nominally on their side. Otherwise we'll all have to start thinking and making nuanced decisions, which would be ridiculous.
Re:Which is it, Slashdot? (Score:5, Funny)
So which is it, Slashdot Narrative?
Gosh it's almost like there's more than one person here and it's almost like person realises that if X is bad, something other than X is not automatically perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, which is why statistics was invented so one could discuss effects hidden in groups*. It's disingenuous to pretend we're so unique that we're beyond descriptive.
*Sociology also exist describing the "indescribable, everyone's completely unique, so why are we making the attempt; oh that's right, people don't want to be accountable for anything they say or do".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> This is Slashdot, everything is bad.
No you argumentative fool! It isn't that everything is bad, it's just that nothing is good!
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you consider yourself an intelligent person, but a website like slashdot does not profit from pushing a single viewpoint. The argument could be made that /. actually profits from publishing a range of viewpoints so that visitors are compelled to engage in conversation/arguments in the comment threads - hey, just like yours. You're acknowledge yourself these different viewpoints. It's a notably different incentive than an industry or company that sells one specific good or service that stands to ben
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you consider yourself an intelligent person, but a website like slashdot does not profit from pushing a single viewpoint.
Slashdot, THE BUSINESS profits from this noise. *click*click*click.
Slashdot, the forum is group behavior made manifest. Much like going through a city demonstrates "the rich area", "the white area","the poor area", etc. It's not intentional, but it does exist and it's not wrong in pointing out it does. It is however wrong in pretending it doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
If only ALL social media believed this way and let voice be free to express all legal points of view on any subject.
Re: (Score:2)
The argument could be made that /. actually profits from publishing a range of viewpoints so that visitors are compelled to engage in conversation/arguments in the comment threads
If only ALL social media believed this way and let voice be free to express all legal points of view on any subject.
Yeah, good point. Those cowards at parler who stifled liberal voices because they have superior arguments are total fucking dildos.
Oh, was that not what you meant? Because if not, you're in denial. We also know that facebook censors liberals more than conservatives [nbcnews.com] for example. Even twitter generally only asks me if I really want to repost an article without reading it (and they have zero idea whether I've read it, BTW; even if I use the link from Twitter to get there, they still don't seem to be able to ke
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Slashdot seems to like Green things and cast the oil industry in a bad light
The oil industry is objectively evil, that's for sure. If you disagree, I challenge you to explain how profiting while knowing you are causing a mass extinction event and no intention of stopping is not objectively evil.
but when then Tesla/Elon come up, which are working to put us in a Green future, you lambast them as well.
One can be working toward noble goals in still do wrong. While Elon is no saint, there are moneyed interests (short sellers especially) that want to see Telsa (and it's stock price) collapse.
So which is it, Slashdot Narrative?
Slashdot isn't pushing a narrative here because a narrative omits or alters information. What they
Re:Which is it, Slashdot? (Score:4, Insightful)
The oil industry is objectively evil, that's for sure. If you disagree, I challenge you to explain how profiting while knowing you are causing a mass extinction event and no intention of stopping is not objectively evil.
I guess I am evil too, since I just bought a new gas powered car and will be a customer of theirs for at least the next 8 years. Looking around, it looks like all my neighbors are evil too. In fact, judging from the number of pickups and SUVs here, this is a pretty heinously evil place. Not only that, I have friends in other cities and countries, and it sounds like they are all pretty evil as well.
It's a good thing nobody takes such labels seriously.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I do, and you are. SUV's, esp. are *lousy*. What kind of mileage are you getting? A 1972 Maverick got about 14 mpg. My Eldest, when she traded in her Camry, which was getting over 30 mpg, for an Outback, was suddenly getting 10 MPG less.
But you like giving your money to the oil companies.
"Enlightened self-interest", my ass.
Re: (Score:2)
This is probably not a good place for judgmental people to live, but I like it.
Re: (Score:2)
How do they compare to the winters in northern Finland? There are very few trucks there. My cousins have only a dirt road going to their property, they seem to get by fine with an Opel hatchback.
In the city though? The city sends out snowplows, I guess you could consider that a truck.
Re: (Score:2)
People love their trucks here though, and I've owned them myself and can't deny their utility and comfort. Cars are certainly the minority in most parking lots.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I am evil too, since I just bought a new gas powered car and will be a customer of theirs for at least the next 8 years.
No, you are just an indifferent jerk. Not evil, just a jerk.
Re: (Score:3)
But yeah, when people start preaching end of the world bullshit that does make me laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like one of the "nothing is real until it hurts me" fools and then when the shit finally hits the fan you will act surprised and claim nobody could have foreseen such an outcome. Possibly more infuriating the the indifferent jerks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The laws of physics are unyielding and the results of them are highly predictable. Climate change isn't just going to disappear because you ignore it.
If humanity actually mitigates the problem then it will be like the Y2K bug then people like you will say "see, nothing happened" when actually we made a lot of changes to prevent a bad outcome. However, if we do nothing then there is going to be the development of a band around the planet where it's too hot for humans and a gradual shift in the locations of
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change isn't just going to disappear because you ignore it.
I actually expect climate to change continuously. I don't believe it has ever been a constant. We are a very adaptable species. 12,000 years ago the place I'm sitting was under hundreds of feet of glacial ice. That ice did not just disappear and then everything became static, despite the popular narrative.
When the end of the world does not materialize, we will be inundated with people taking credit for "saving" us. Fine, let them have their fun.
Famine, migration, war and genocide are not new. I
Re: (Score:3)
I actually expect climate to change continuously. I don't believe it has ever been a constant.
Absolutely. The only reason this is different is that instead of occurring over the period of thousands years, massive changes have been compressed into decades. Over the period of thousands of years, evolutionary adaptation/mutation prevents extinction. However, with what's happening now, there is no time for evolution to take place and thus we mass extinctions are going to happen. The global ecosystem will recover... it will simply take millions of years for new animals to evolve.
In short, you are say
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. The only reason this is different is that instead of occurring over the period of thousands years, massive changes have been compressed into decades.
Despite what you have been led to believe, massive century scale changes to climate are not unusual. Also, 99.9% of the species that have ever lived are extinct. There is nothing special about this snapshot in time except we presumably like it and wish it would stay this way forever. In reality the future will be different regardless, and may be better or worse, but better is the safer bet IMHO, based on basically all of human existence.
In short, you are saying nobody should worry because the ocean has always been sending waves and we are telling you that a tsunami is coming.
A tsunami is always coming.
Saying it's warming is not demonstra
Re: (Score:3)
Despite what you have been led to believe, massive century scale changes to climate are not unusual.
Alas, this is not like any of the others because the others were volcanic eruptions which released particulate matter into the atmosphere which blocked out a lot of sunlight and thus keeping the planet cooler. No large volcanoes going off here, just human's polluting.
Also, 99.9% of the species that have ever lived are extinct. There is nothing special about this snapshot in time except we presumably like it and wish it would stay this way forever.
Your indifference is noted.
We'll be sure to watch for warning signs.
The warning signs are already here which is exactly what the big deal is about.
Anyway, obviously we don't agree on this but thanks for the respectful discussion nonetheless.
Here's the thing, if I'm wrong then I've put a lot of effort into making a cleaner better future for mankind. If you are wrong then you
Re: (Score:2)
by trying to prohibit some technological advances.
Which technological advances are being prohibited? I mean, this entire effort has forces us to push our technology to advance, so I have no idea what you think is being held back.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite what you have been led to believe, massive century scale changes to climate are not unusual.
Alas, this is not like any of the others
Like the MWO and LIA? If you only look at graphs that have been thoroughly smoothed then the real variability does not show. It is intentional of course, but many people do notice such things.
The warning signs are already here which is exactly what the big deal is about.
Except all those continuous improvements in the human condition I mentioned are not slowing down.
Here's the thing, if I'm wrong then I've put a lot of effort into making a cleaner better future for mankind. If you are wrong then you have willingly contributed to the needlessly deaths of millions.
A million people die every week globally. I do actually try to contribute to reducing that, just through various causes that are not the same as your singularly obsessive focus. There are many ways to make the world
Re: (Score:2)
If you only look at graphs that have been thoroughly smoothed then the real variability does not show. It is intentional of course, but many people do notice such things.
Oh, so you don't understand how core sampling works. It's not pinpoint accurate like you seem to think it is. If this is what you are basing your argument on then you need to learn more about core sampling and why the graphs are "smoothed".
Except all those continuous improvements in the human condition I mentioned are not slowing down.
That's like saying you don't need to go to the ER for a gangrenous wound because you feel fine. It will eventually make you feel poorly but the time it does it will be a life-threatening condition. Same thing applies here. You are looking at the wrong metrics.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so you don't understand how core sampling works.
There are many different proxies science uses to try and guess historical climate. I agree many of them are of questionable granularity. We don't have to go back that far to know that large swings in climate are not unusual though. It is downplayed because it is not consistent with the apocalyptic narrative.
That's like saying you don't need to go to the ER for a gangrenous wound because you feel fine.
Or maybe you are just a hypochondriac. They have a lot in common with the end times prophets.
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody else is doing it, so it must be OK? [wikipedia.org]
On the bright side, the more people are driving SUVs and other gas guzzlers, the sooner we run out of oil. Of course, it will be something more gradual with supplies drying out and prices rising. But at some point, going electric (or otherwise sustainable) will be a matter of cold, hard reality, not just some hippie ideology. That's the whole point of sustainable energy and living -- doing only things that you can keep on doing.
Climate change or not, it does
Re: (Score:2)
I have nothing against BEVs, or H2 fuel cells, maybe in the future I will consider one, but that is not today. For people who have them and like them, I'm glad. To each their own. I'm happy to live in a world where we have such freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
If Big Oil is so evil, why do you continue to use their products so extensively?
I don't. The only oil based products I purchase can be recycled (plastics), I buy them seldomly, and I make sure to them break down into easily recyclable components when disposing of them. Metal and wood based products are usually of higher quality anyway. We need to move toward a society that recycles 100% of everything it uses instead of polluting.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, you mean you're simply not aware of it. Plastic, concrete, steel, wood, glass, food, clothes, transport, medicine, pretty much everything is in someway dependent on Oil.
So you think it's hypocrisy because despite my best efforts that there are certain elements of production beyond my control? Perhaps you should give a dictionary a brief visit.
Turn off the oil and you are immediately back to the dark ages.
Then the reasonable course of action is to migrate away from our dependence on natural oil as much and as fast a possible which is exactly I have done and continue to do.
Since you are using a computer and arguing on the internet we can safely assume you are enjoying the benefits of the oil industry while at the same time pretending they are 'evil'.
I'm not an absolutist or a purist and I never hid the fact that I use plastics, so I'm not sure why you are acting like you have discovered something profound. Hell
Re: (Score:2)
You choose to live in the luxury that fossil fuels provide all the while cursing those luxuries you choose to use as "evil".
Not at all. I would happily pay a higher price for goods only made with recycled or synthetic plastics. Also, if people do not financially support corporations that do the least harm then they cannot proliferate and further reduce their dependence on natural oil.
They are not beyond your control. You are free to go live in a cave free from the evils of oil, yet you choose not to do so.
Perfect is the enemy of good. What you suggest would prevent society from transitioning away from the dependence on natural oil which is antithetical to my intentions.
I also noticed that you have not even tried to explain how profiting while know
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Slashdot is a website, it is not self-aware.
Slashdot editors have one job, get people to argue so as to increase page views. Everything else is subordinate to that task.
If you are incapable of understanding these things, perhaps you should get off the internet before you hurt yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot is a website, it is not self-aware.
It appears that Borg unit #153816 is malfunctioning.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot seems to like Green things and cast the oil industry in a bad light, but when then Tesla/Elon come up, which are working to put us in a Green future, you lambast them as well. So which is it, Slashdot Narrative?
I'd think that being cynical about both sides would be something to applaud as showing lack of bias.
With that said, I'd say that Tesla can be randomly evil (mostly from off-the-cuff tweets by Elon), but Exxon is routinely evil.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are capable of complex opinions, it is possible to support green tech while also despising Elon Musk for being a terrible person.
Sometimes "bad" people are contributing to your cause. People don't automatically become "good" just because they agree with you politically---unless you're a moron.
Personally, I don't think Elon is as bad as your average Fortune 500 CEO, but no one should be above criticism.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought we decided on Climate Emergency. Did I miss the last newsletter?
This is Friday. The code-words change weekly at Midnight on Wednesday, New York time. . . . (grin)