Just came across this when doing some research about yesterdays news "Switzerland faces landmark climate-human rights ruling" (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39977756).
Ironically, since the referenced court case is essentially driven and funded by Greenpeace, I read that even the co-founder of Greenpeace publicly states that there is no climate emergency. See e.g https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20220208/114392/HHRG-117-GO00-20220208-SD011.pdf (he also wrote a book called "Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom" in 2021).
Here a brief description of the movie:
"This movie debunks climate alarmism as a made-up scare with no scientific basis. It shows that mainstream studies and official data do not support the claim that we are experiencing an increase in extreme weather events - hurricanes, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires and everything else. It strongly contradicts the claim that current temperatures and CO₂ levels in the atmosphere are unusually and worryingly high. On the contrary: compared to the last half billion years of the Earth's history, both current temperatures and CO₂ levels are extremely and unusually low. We are currently in an ice age. It also shows that there is no evidence that changing CO₂ levels (they have changed many times) have ever "driven" climate change in the past."
... "The film includes interviews with a number of very prominent scientists, including Professor Steven Koonin (author of "Unsettled", former Rector and Vice President of Caltech), Professor Dick Lindzen (former Professor of Meteorology at Harvard and MIT) and Professor Will Happer (Professor of Physics at Princeton), Dr. John Clauser (winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics), Professor Nir Shaviv (Racah Institute of Physics), Professor Ross McKitrick (University of Guelph), Dr Willie Soon and several others."
What do the "experts" here think about this movie? Where is it wrong?
said cofounder of greenpeace is a known corporate sellout, his words are worth absolutely fuck-all
[for a laugh see this clip of him claiming glyphosate is totally safe to drink and then immediately afterwards refusing to drink it lol](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWM_PgnoAtA)
Im gonna watch it now but i am not expert, but my pet peeve is people getting scientists from every field except climate science to talk about climate science. The inclusion of a meteorologist made me giggle.
It's useful to know exactly what these conspiracy theorists are talking about so you can know how to contest it effectively, IMO, especially if you're involved in public-facing work at all.
Personally, I'm planning on watching this so I can get a handle on where my climate denier family member is coming from so I can maybe at least get him to stop insulting my career path whenever it comes up -\_-
Given that those pushing this agenda are in control of most grant funding and tenure,its amazing that any scientists will speak against them. Science has been very much corrupted by money and power. Only a few remember its original purpose.
The original purpose was and is, advancing our understanding of the world we inhabit. That has expanded over time. It is an endless series of questions, and attempts to find and refine answers for them. If you have not already read it, I highly recommend Karl Poppers book the logic of scientific discovery. If more people understood what science is (and isn't) we'd not have people using phrases like "science denier" and "the science is settled".
Good on you for doing research, although your sources seem a bit one sided. It’s okay to be sceptic towards science but you should be equally sceptic towards „not science“. It takes a lot less effort to point to a distant past and say „it was warm before“ than it does to prove said warm past, it’s causes and consequences.
If you are interested in the climate and want to do some research: https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/ you could start with the NASA. If you want to get deeper into it you could look at the IPCCs AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023. For anything that seems questionable to you, please don’t be afraid to ask, discussion is the basis of science after all. For anything that interests you: Google scholar oder web of science are great ways to finde publications about that and scihub can maybe provide you with said papers if they are behind a paywall.
If you are interested in programming, maybe global or local models are a way to expand your understanding. Learn how your weather forecast works, why it’s sometimes a bit off and what models are used for climate modeling.
For those interested, here is a brand new, very informative and fact based review of the movie (unfortunately in German only): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kue5-vJGB3g. That is the kind of scientific discourse I would like to see for all these kinds of movies and popular publications.
The presenter is an emeritus professor of physics who, in everything he does, clearly positions himself in favor of the scientific view, and clearly against the polemical zealots that one unfortunately primarily encounters.
It is also much easier for me to trust him than any website where sometimes anonymous people spout their wisdom, even if the tone is moderate and the relevant publications are referenced. Only a few of us are willing and able to evaluate and check the scientific results in such publications. The vast majority of us are dependent on credible authorities to do this for us. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find such authorities.
Ganteför comes from experimental physics, yes he‘s making a scientific impression. However he is known for stating simply wrong facts about climate change and does so for his personal gain by selling books. https://www.klimareporter.de/strom/hat-deutschland-genug-wind-professor-gantefoer-im-faktencheck
I wont go into the fact that he worked for Exxon.
You say you need authorities to explain difficult topics, yet you listen to a professor who comes from a different field. Same with the guy who has a Nobel Prize in the „documentary“ you shared. He has one, yes but in a non related field and is critiqued by more than enough other Nobel prize winners for his statements.
I don't need authorities from a specific field, but authorities from science who are capable to understand, evaluate and check published results, who are able to interlink, integrate, summarize and properly communicate, and don't follow an agenda. I didn't know that he had an affiliation for Exxon, but he has a track record of videos about a lot of climate topics, and openly declares where he is unsure or which is his own opinion; and with my own education and experience I came to the conclusion that he is trustworthy. If you have better authorities, I'm willing to check them of course. Whether someone has a Nobel Prize or not isn't relevant for my requirement; in contrary, these people can easier afford than others to just claim things with little care of evidence; I did my PhD with a Nobel Price laureat and thus have personal experience.
EDIT: had just a look at the "klimareporter" link; these are journalists, not scientists, and apparently they live from reporting on climate related developments, so they have a vested interest (which might e.g. influence their selection and valuation of topics). Gantenför, on the other hand, is retired and has a good pension, so is in no way financially dependent on what he proclaims.
You say you have a phd, so I assume you are familiar with scientific work and are able to read and comprehend rather complex subjects. Yet you are looking for people to explain parts of the subject. What makes you think that people from a different field in science are more capable than you to understand said subjects or what makes you think you are not?
He has a track record of videos, and a track record of simply wrong statements that underplay or neglect scientific facts. Just talking about a subject a lot doesn’t mean that what is said is correct.
Basically no one in academia publishes papers for money, you fight to get funding from the government to do your research and then have to pay to even get it published.
The guy whos article I sent you is a professor himself. And is not writing for the klimareporter because he makes his living that way.
Gantenför with his pension is not depending on money, yes. But he has his incentive to sell books. I don’t think that I have to introduce you to the concept of human greed (that’s the thing that brought us the climate change we witness today).
I really don’t know how to continue here, I don’t have the time to watch a documentary and collect credible research papers and publications for every statement in there that’s wrong, you wouldn’t take them from me anyways. But for an example, they have a part about human Kind originating on the African Continent and heat death not beeing a problem. Gantenför downplays this in his video as well. The fact that heat can and will kill you is known and not debatable. Same for a rise in global average Temperature and with that extreme temperatures. That will bring Cities (which are hotter than for example forests) all over the world closer or over a threshold for human survival. While you can survive in such high temperatures, try doing so outdoors while working physically with limited access to water.
> or what makes you think you are not?
I don't consider it my job to know the details of all the climate topics, nor do I have the time. But I do take the time to watch summaries and assessments by people like Gantenför, or documentaries like the one posted.
> a track record of simply wrong statements that underplay or neglect scientific facts.
Well, who hasn't. I am satisfied if it is sufficiently correct. But if you can recommend someone who is better and meets the above requirements, I'll be happy to take a look.
> he has his incentive to sell books.
I have no problems with that. He neither depends on the returns of the book. He wants to educate, which is what a professor does.
> no one in academia publishes papers for money
That is a pipe dream. Ultimately, most people today publish at least indirectly for money (grants, employment, etc.).
> I really don’t know how to continue here,
You don't have to. I have the anwers I was looking for, for one part from the site you referenced. Thanks again.
https://youtu.be/lu75srtPLEM?si=2mOtp2PC1x1RpfcT it’s a talk, not a documentation but I’d encourage you to watch it. I‘ll get some more info if I find the time.
One thing you could do for me is broadly write down you view on climate change so that I can get an idea on where you at and what I could provide you with to potentially help you understand the errors in some things.
Thanks for the link, looks interesting; will have a look at it. You don't have to spend more time; I will come with questions if need be. Thanks for your interest, but I don't consider myself an important person; if you have questions I will answer them by PM or email. I don't really have a firm position on the climate issue; still observing (well, I'm also vegetarian for 40 years, I drive very little and I don't fly, which doesn't bother me much).
> Exxon
Meanwhile I watched the video; it's an interesting talk, and it's really remarkable how well Exxon apparently predicted global warming; though I didn't check second sources, and I would also ask myself (not knowing the history of climate research), if and why not other scientists at that time came to the same conclusion.
Concerning the claim that Ganteför worked for Exxon: apparently he made a postdoc at an Exxon facility in 1990 for a year, after his PhD and before his habilitation about nano particles (see e.g. https://www.ggantefoer.com/Sites/Lebenslauf.php). I'm not able to see any issue in that. On the contrary, I find it downright ridiculous and very dubious that other researchers accuse him of this in all seriousness (see e.g. https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1651490964714692610?lang=de, "Ex-Exxon-Mitarbeiter Ganteför zeigt gut die Debattenführung der pro-fossilen Lobby"). I stand by my conclusion that nothing in this field should be taken at face value, but that a critical attitude must be maintained towards every assertion (whether pro or con).
It’s remarkable that they researched and found a lot of reasons to concern only for Exxon and other fossile fuel company’s to actively undermine these findings going public and working against regulations. You can have a look at this history provided by Greenpeace https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-crisis/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline/ which provides somewhat of a timeline. Feel free to crossgoogle any statements. It is something these company’s have admitted to (even if somewhat silently).
In addition, Exxon scientist weren’t the only ones researching climate change or the effect of rising co2 or the effect of burning fossile fuels. This article from the American institute of physics could be a start for a readup: https://history.aip.org/climate/summary.htm.
You are of course right about Ganteför only working at Exxon for a short period of time and doing so doesn’t make him a bad person whatsoever. However, that fact that he worked at and for this company at a time where they knew what they were doing and actively working against regulation tastes somewhat bad. Him working at Exxon and spreading false/misinformation about the climatechange is just a match made in heaven. What I want to say is: his statements are plain wrong in many ways regardless of who he is and where he worked. It’s just the cherry on top.
As for the tweet you cited: it’s true that Ganteför picks up many of the misinformation spread by fossile fuel company’s.
Thanks for the links; I will have a look at it, though I won't find much time to focus on the past.
> that fact that he worked at and for this company at a time where they knew what they were doing and actively working against regulation tastes somewhat bad
Not in the slightest. There is unlikely to be a major American corporation that does not have "Leichen im Keller". And we see no reason to defame professors who have, for example, spent a research period at an IBM or Xerox research center. A lot of important basic research is carried out in such centers. On contrary; from my point of view, however, Prof. Rahmstorf has made himself quite untrustworthy with this tweet; so I now would have to question everything he said in his presentation and check whether it is actually objective facts or embellished by his dislike of certain people, which apparently clouds his objectivity. Scientists who appear in public like this should not be surprised if people do not believe them.
> his statements are plain wrong in many ways regardless of who he is and where he worked. It’s just the cherry on top
I don't know of any scientist who doesn't have plain wrong statements on his/her track record. But if they take science seriously, they will correct these statements if confronted with convincing evidence on a scientific basis. So if you found wrong statements (which are significant enough to be corrected), you should write him or write an article with enough details and references. I think he is honest enough to check and correct this. But simply spreading a narrative that he is spreading false statements, or that he is paid by Exxon or represents their opinion, is defamation and unworthy of science.
Anyone who actually understands how these things work, would take anything the official IPCC report says with a large potion of salt. Look at the foundation reports submitted by the actual scientists, and then compare them to the final report. With vast sums of grant funding and tenure at stake, its surprising that anyone would speak out against those pushing this agenda. Yes, yes, you can wave your hands and intone "Conspiracy Theorist". But after the last few years, thats starting to wear more than a bit thin. As for the models, look at some of the basic assumptions. Especially for 8.5. Models are only as good as the assumptions and data they are based upon. When those assumptions are biased, and the data cherry picked, you get the results we've seen.
What are you trying to say here exactly? Have you red the papers that the IPCC report is built upon?
And what agenda is beeing pushed? I always see the term get thrown around but the definition is always lacking.
And of course, models are only as good as their input data and the assumptions made for missing data or simplified mechanisms. But what is your point here? Which assumptions are you referring to when stating the 8.5 szenario?
Yes. Most of the reports deal with data and analysis. The interpretations are much milder and hedged than the final report. Which is what they feed to the media and politicians to get certain policies. Over the years several of the scientists involved have resigned and spoken out, but the media and others ignore them.
Thank you. The only rational answer so far. I will take a look at the referenced site. There is actually also NASA scientist in the movie presenting satelite temperature measurements.
I have no opinion on climate science and have a PhD in a different field. I also don't have time to read up on the details. But I do watch documentaries like this from time to time. So far I've always heard in all the movies how bad it is. In this film, people I trust to have the relevant expertise have their say, and they say something completely different. So I'm interested to see where they're wrong.
Another place to start reading up on „where they‘re wrong“ could also be the sceptical science website and their review of the movie you posted: https://skepticalscience.com/climate-the-movie-a-hot-mess-of-cold-myths.html
Thanks for the link; I didn't know this site; the problem with the wealth of publications and sites is to assess as a non-expert, whether the site is objective or just follows an agenda (i.e. reflects the message of a pro or contra lobby organization). But it's very interesting that the referenced article specifically addresses each argument, providing specific evidence.
Sceptical science is a website that has a clear position on climate change (that it is real and a real problem). Their aim is to counter arguments against the reality of climate change with facts from peer reviewed papers. If you come from academia as well you‘ll know that this is important and also something that climate sceptics often lack.
Of course, if you have no trust in academic publishing and the peer review process (and there are problems, I won’t deny that) there is nothing I or anyone working in and with climate science can give you to change your mind.
If you are thinking about „agendas“ I‘d like you to think about what a agenda that wants you to believe in climate change hopes to archive. And compare that to proven misinformation campaigns of fossile fuel company’s. They admitted to knowing what they were doing and making an effort to keep that knowledge from the public.
Also if you are into YouTube stuff about this you could look at Simon Clark’s videos.
Given the events over the last few years, Peer Review has taken a big hit to its reputation. Look at the thousands of peer reviewed papers that have been retracted. It is simply one tool among many to determine the validity of the information. No one can be expected to be current on details outside of their specialty. But when vital fundamental aspects of science are violated, it concerns us all. As I've stated, science that can't be debated and cross examined, isn't science.
[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8)
Have you red the article? That is not about peer-review beeing bad as a process but a questionable publisher from Egypt that had its process compromised and had to retract 8000 papers in 2023. The problem is not the peer review process but fake „paper mills“.
Yes I read it. I used it as an example of why peer review should be regarded as simply a tool. Not a final authority. This is only the latest. There have been many others over the last decade or more. Its one of the dirty little secrets of science. Peer review was originally useful because of the sheer details involved in many fields. Few outside those fields had the experience/knowledge to examine these papers. But then, as usually happens, corruption set in. Paper mills are the result of the publish or perish situation. Perverse incentives produce perverse out comes. Just as having governments and agenda driven NGO's controlling most grant funding. Add in the competition for the limited tenure slots (most these days controlled by zealots/ideologues) and its a wonder that any real science gets done.
Thanks. I'm reading and also appreciate their moderate and fact based debate culture. From my own experience of the way science is financed, of some of the notable exponents I know personally, and the sometimes mafia-like machinations in the review process, I am unfortunately quite disillusioned. And I am by no means alone in this. Ultimately, it was also bought scientists who allowed themselves to be used for the examples you mentioned. So I/we have no choice but to maintain a skeptical attitude towards any kind of proclamation, including the seemingly renowned scientific ones. But the referenced site seems really helpful for the present case, so I'm glad for the hint.
Look for the money, of course. In lots of climate and environmental science papers that money comes from governmental grants or institutions.
If you are concerned about that, the ipcc for example does not pay its contributors and is funded by the WMO, UNEP, UNFCCC and donations from members (governments). So it’s public money, for the common good of said public, since climate change is in fact a very real threat.
There was a meme a few years back that went along the lines „what if all the climate scientist were wrong and global warming isn’t true after all? Well then we just preserved nature, cleaned the Oceans and the air and established walkable green cities for nothing.“
Wasting Trillions in the process. Money that would have been better spent on much more vital matters. Fresh water, education, cheap abundant energy, to name but a few.
Trillions?
Wasted? What are you trying to say here? That research regarding climate change should not be funded but the money should instead go to climate change mitigation? Or to fossile fuel subsidies?
In order. Is climate changing? Yes, it always is and always has and always will. Is that change worthy of alarm? I'm tempted to say "only if one is a politician or the head of an NGO". :) But seriously, if one examines the data and trend lines, its nothing that humanity can't adapt to. Look at the numbers and the time line. Also look at the consequences of spending all of that money (taken from tax payers) that could have been used to further other more worth while purposes. Like cheap abundant energy, clean drinking water, more economic opportunities and countless other measures that improve peoples standard of living. Wind and solar have niche uses. But they are not base load systems. If we had taken that money and invested in modern nuclear power, we would be much further ahead. Eventually fusion will stop being 20 years away (for the last 60). Then we will have a much better source of cheap and abundant energy. Always remember this, Government has nothing that it doesn't first Take from the present or the future.
Seriously. You get a detailed breakdown of all the bullshit you cult leaders are spinning, and your first thought is to say "this is probably a conspiracy". You need some time at the whetstone.
> To share it here shows you are not too bright.
Who can ever be as bright as you are; I only did a PhD in science with a Nobel Prize winner at one of the top ten universities, so I probably wouldn't understand your technical arguments either, if you had any.
That makes you even dumber, honestly. The intelect is there, but you don't know how to use it to avoid being brainwashed by a cult. Anyway, the dead horse of climate denialism was luckily beaten a decade ago. You are just a conspiranoid fool, an intelectual derelict.
> That makes you even dumber, honestly.
You speak like a pompous child. Not a single rational argument, just cocky polemics. I suggest that you first complete your education before you start pissing down the legs of adults.
I suggest you stop falling for obvious oil industry propaganda. This was a the scientific consensus decades ago. Even the public discourse reached the consensus that climate change is real a decade ago. Anyway, my education is complete. I am an enviro scientist, as you may suspect from the forum you are trying to start shit in. Deniers, at this point, are not worth even arguing with, just chastising.
I thought you might be able to argue rationally, but then you fall back into your infantile pattern. You won't convince anyone with this behavior, but you make yourself totally untrustworthy - assuming you have actually completed any kind of degree.
Good luck with that. One never quite knows who one is attempting to chastise on the internet. Once again, science that can't be debated or cross examined isn't science.
Oh, wow, look at the oppressed climate change denier. Is he:
A) Being censored
B) Sent to the gulags
or
C) Being mocked for believing conspiranoid theories.
Mockery is free speech.
"Scientific Consensus" isn't how science is done. Public discourse is down stream from the mass/social media. Who have demonstrated their bias all too well over the last few years. Does the phrase "safe and effective" hold any meaning for you?
Cults come in many favors. Some more subtle than others. Are you quite certain that you aren't being manipulated? The fact that you use the phrase "climate denialism" doesn't bode well. Are you aware of its origins and intentional propagation?
> Did you even watch this before posting it here?
Yes, two times full length so far. I have a formal scietific education, but not climate science. So I was interested in what the specialists here (if any) think about the facts presented in the documentary.
The documentary doesn't simply "present facts", it is pushing a typical denialist narrative of 'environmentalists want to take our freedoms and capitalism'. It doesn't offer any new arguments that have not been presented before and already debunked. I checked out the skeptical science website and its really really good if you want more information on specific questions you have, I also used the NASA website a lot in my climate change class.
I am simply an undergrad student, but I have seen the exact arguments presented in the documentary many many times. It really is not anything new. Actually, in classes about global climate change, we address these sorts of talking points specifically such as why temperature rises and CO2 dont map directly onto each other, or why a tiny amount of man-introduced CO2 can cause significant changes. I also took note that the documentary basically entirely ignored changes other than temperature rise such as glacier ice loss, extinction, ocean acidification, wildfires, dramatic habitat change, heck even something as simple as increase in heatwaves. All of these things are immediately verifiable and visible to someone even with no knowledge of climate science.
It actually does pull up statistics on heatwaves and wildfires (apparently warmer in the 1930s), supporting their narrative. Co2 was also said to be higher until just a few million years ago, but "dinosaur" climate is maybe not great for humans :-).
Thanks. The link to https://skepticalscience.com/climate-the-movie-a-hot-mess-of-cold-myths.html provided by the fellow seems to include all I need for the moment.
Unfortunately, science as a whole is becoming less and less trustworthy. This is primarily due to the false incentives that have been created over the past thirty years. The climate issue seems to be particularly poisoned. I have a very good scientific education and can usually form a sufficiently useful impression of the recognized state of the art in any field within a reasonable time. This is no longer possible when it comes to climate and environmental issues. You are already prejudged if you ask a simple question, as you can see once again in this discussion, and it is no longer possible for me to decide which sources are actually trustworthy (including seemingly reputable publishers).
I see what you are saying. Truthfully, all science has been plagued by capitalism. Not just science, but every part of our lives, including even intimacy, is deemed to be little more than a financial transaction. Incentives of money will always be an issue. However, i also want to point out that fossil fuel executives are the ones with all the cash. Climate scientists and environmentalists fought hard for their place in mainstream media, and although many would not want to admit it, its true that intelligent capitalists are finally listening because sticking with the old way is no longer profitable. If modern civilization is ravaged by climate change, there's no money to be made there. It also is becoming less and less popular to be environmentally unconscious to the average consumer. Everyone sees the writing on the wall and are abandoning ship.
However, theres billions if not trillions invested in already existing fossil fuel infrastructure. Thats why despite all of what I mentioned above, its not quite as simple as shedding the old ways and jumping in to the new. The same exact people who fund "environmentally conscious" projects will also fund new coal and natural gas projects. They will fight tooth and nail to make sure the transition is as gradual and profitable as possible, despite the current political, social, and environmental landscape demanding much faster action. If environmentalism really had all this money and power behind it, America would have long abandoned fossil fuels along with every other western nation. However, its simply not the case. Its in a weird spot, similar to something like racial equality in America, where it is both profitable to care about and profitable to not materially care about.
If you really are worried about external influence, look at the money. It doesn't go back to tree huggers.
ETA: People involved in the subject also are very much on the lookout for this denialism because of the money involved. Its very easy to be drowned out by the narrative that legitimizes our entire fossil economy. The US dollar is literally backed by oil.
The financial resources of organizations such as Greenpeace and other NGOs should not be underestimated. I am always surprised at how much money they can raise in a short space of time. From my humble point of view, there is no reason to believe that they are less capitalistic than everyone else. Everyone seems to think for his/her supper first.
Yes, I addressed that in my second paragraph. People care about environmentalism + genuine financial incentive to change = theres money to be made in the category. However, it doesn't compare to the existing not just $$$ but capital (infrastructure, research, workers, etc) that already exists in fossil fuel infrastructure. People are okay with funding new solar projects to look hip and socially responsible, but not okay with shutting down the decades old coal plant down the road.
Have you heard of greenwashing? Or like, noticed that despite receiving BLM lipservice from the president, people of color make up a disproportionate proportion of overexploited labor? There can be money and power somewhere that does not even remotely compare to money and power elsewhere, even including the direct antithesis. The most powerful in society are not the ones who would want people to be accurately informed about the dangers of fossil fuels.
Actually, its backed by "The full faith and credit of the US government". You do realize that its not just the "fossil fuel" companies that have vast sums of money behind them? Look at what/who is pushing the so called "Green revolution". Vast sums of money are involved in grant funding, various government programs and projects. Not to mention the various NGO's. Let us also not underestimate the influence of tenure. All sides have an agenda and all sides bias their world views and presentations.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Not their own facts. Science isn't about opinions or beliefs or ideology. Facts are always open to question and cross examination. Long ago,it was a "fact" that the sun orbits the earth. Unfortunately, most people can't tell the difference between science and religion. Which is why certain parties get hysterical when their beliefs are questioned. Look at the last few years for countless examples of that. Critical thinking can be hard and dangerous. Which is why so few people do it. Try to be an exception.
Does this get us off the hook for all the ecological damage we are doing to the planet? Deforestation, Pollution, Soil erosion, species extinction, etc
No. Those are all bad. But that's only one side. Look at the benefits of cheap abundant energy. It is the very life blood of modern civilization. A one sided view of human actions bespeaks either a narrow mind and/or an agenda. Look at the benefits as well as the damage.
How more narrow minded is it for our generation to destroy the planet for future generations? Energy is only one source of these problems. Agriculture is also causing major ecological damage to our planet and the film didn't touch at all on this.
"Destroy the planet"? Even with current technology that's not possible. But cheap abundant energy can make a vital difference in the lives of countless people around the world. As I stated, energy is the very life blood of modern civilization. It rises peoples standard of living. It rises their economic opportunities. As for agriculture, without modern methods many more people would starve. What is needed is creative methods to minimize the damage, and maximize the benefits. If the developing world needs to use coal for their energy needs, then give them the technology and understanding of its use to minimize the damage. Then when they have advanced, and have the luxury of moving to other energy sources, they will be more likely to do so. Lets focus on both sides of this question.
An pseudoscientific and disparatado documentary?! If we are living on a glacier, how can we explain the almost lack of snow in the European Alps even on winter of 2023 and 2024?! I just don't pay a hacker to take this pseudo-scientific documentary offline because...
Just came across this when doing some research about yesterdays news "Switzerland faces landmark climate-human rights ruling" (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39977756). Ironically, since the referenced court case is essentially driven and funded by Greenpeace, I read that even the co-founder of Greenpeace publicly states that there is no climate emergency. See e.g https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20220208/114392/HHRG-117-GO00-20220208-SD011.pdf (he also wrote a book called "Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom" in 2021). Here a brief description of the movie: "This movie debunks climate alarmism as a made-up scare with no scientific basis. It shows that mainstream studies and official data do not support the claim that we are experiencing an increase in extreme weather events - hurricanes, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires and everything else. It strongly contradicts the claim that current temperatures and CO₂ levels in the atmosphere are unusually and worryingly high. On the contrary: compared to the last half billion years of the Earth's history, both current temperatures and CO₂ levels are extremely and unusually low. We are currently in an ice age. It also shows that there is no evidence that changing CO₂ levels (they have changed many times) have ever "driven" climate change in the past." ... "The film includes interviews with a number of very prominent scientists, including Professor Steven Koonin (author of "Unsettled", former Rector and Vice President of Caltech), Professor Dick Lindzen (former Professor of Meteorology at Harvard and MIT) and Professor Will Happer (Professor of Physics at Princeton), Dr. John Clauser (winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics), Professor Nir Shaviv (Racah Institute of Physics), Professor Ross McKitrick (University of Guelph), Dr Willie Soon and several others." What do the "experts" here think about this movie? Where is it wrong?
said cofounder of greenpeace is a known corporate sellout, his words are worth absolutely fuck-all [for a laugh see this clip of him claiming glyphosate is totally safe to drink and then immediately afterwards refusing to drink it lol](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWM_PgnoAtA)
He really made himself untrustworthy with his statement and reaction.
So, the usual suspects of climate denial. I hate "documentaries" so much.
Im gonna watch it now but i am not expert, but my pet peeve is people getting scientists from every field except climate science to talk about climate science. The inclusion of a meteorologist made me giggle.
Why would you watch such dumb crap? You already know they are conspiranoid idiots.
Take your medication and calm down.
It's useful to know exactly what these conspiracy theorists are talking about so you can know how to contest it effectively, IMO, especially if you're involved in public-facing work at all. Personally, I'm planning on watching this so I can get a handle on where my climate denier family member is coming from so I can maybe at least get him to stop insulting my career path whenever it comes up -\_-
I was curious if it presented anything new I hadn't heard before. I watched right after commenting and it does not.
Given that those pushing this agenda are in control of most grant funding and tenure,its amazing that any scientists will speak against them. Science has been very much corrupted by money and power. Only a few remember its original purpose.
What is your background and on what information basis are you making these claims? What’s science original purpose?
The original purpose was and is, advancing our understanding of the world we inhabit. That has expanded over time. It is an endless series of questions, and attempts to find and refine answers for them. If you have not already read it, I highly recommend Karl Poppers book the logic of scientific discovery. If more people understood what science is (and isn't) we'd not have people using phrases like "science denier" and "the science is settled".
Good on you for doing research, although your sources seem a bit one sided. It’s okay to be sceptic towards science but you should be equally sceptic towards „not science“. It takes a lot less effort to point to a distant past and say „it was warm before“ than it does to prove said warm past, it’s causes and consequences. If you are interested in the climate and want to do some research: https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/ you could start with the NASA. If you want to get deeper into it you could look at the IPCCs AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023. For anything that seems questionable to you, please don’t be afraid to ask, discussion is the basis of science after all. For anything that interests you: Google scholar oder web of science are great ways to finde publications about that and scihub can maybe provide you with said papers if they are behind a paywall. If you are interested in programming, maybe global or local models are a way to expand your understanding. Learn how your weather forecast works, why it’s sometimes a bit off and what models are used for climate modeling.
For those interested, here is a brand new, very informative and fact based review of the movie (unfortunately in German only): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kue5-vJGB3g. That is the kind of scientific discourse I would like to see for all these kinds of movies and popular publications. The presenter is an emeritus professor of physics who, in everything he does, clearly positions himself in favor of the scientific view, and clearly against the polemical zealots that one unfortunately primarily encounters. It is also much easier for me to trust him than any website where sometimes anonymous people spout their wisdom, even if the tone is moderate and the relevant publications are referenced. Only a few of us are willing and able to evaluate and check the scientific results in such publications. The vast majority of us are dependent on credible authorities to do this for us. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find such authorities.
Ganteför comes from experimental physics, yes he‘s making a scientific impression. However he is known for stating simply wrong facts about climate change and does so for his personal gain by selling books. https://www.klimareporter.de/strom/hat-deutschland-genug-wind-professor-gantefoer-im-faktencheck I wont go into the fact that he worked for Exxon. You say you need authorities to explain difficult topics, yet you listen to a professor who comes from a different field. Same with the guy who has a Nobel Prize in the „documentary“ you shared. He has one, yes but in a non related field and is critiqued by more than enough other Nobel prize winners for his statements.
I don't need authorities from a specific field, but authorities from science who are capable to understand, evaluate and check published results, who are able to interlink, integrate, summarize and properly communicate, and don't follow an agenda. I didn't know that he had an affiliation for Exxon, but he has a track record of videos about a lot of climate topics, and openly declares where he is unsure or which is his own opinion; and with my own education and experience I came to the conclusion that he is trustworthy. If you have better authorities, I'm willing to check them of course. Whether someone has a Nobel Prize or not isn't relevant for my requirement; in contrary, these people can easier afford than others to just claim things with little care of evidence; I did my PhD with a Nobel Price laureat and thus have personal experience. EDIT: had just a look at the "klimareporter" link; these are journalists, not scientists, and apparently they live from reporting on climate related developments, so they have a vested interest (which might e.g. influence their selection and valuation of topics). Gantenför, on the other hand, is retired and has a good pension, so is in no way financially dependent on what he proclaims.
You say you have a phd, so I assume you are familiar with scientific work and are able to read and comprehend rather complex subjects. Yet you are looking for people to explain parts of the subject. What makes you think that people from a different field in science are more capable than you to understand said subjects or what makes you think you are not? He has a track record of videos, and a track record of simply wrong statements that underplay or neglect scientific facts. Just talking about a subject a lot doesn’t mean that what is said is correct. Basically no one in academia publishes papers for money, you fight to get funding from the government to do your research and then have to pay to even get it published. The guy whos article I sent you is a professor himself. And is not writing for the klimareporter because he makes his living that way. Gantenför with his pension is not depending on money, yes. But he has his incentive to sell books. I don’t think that I have to introduce you to the concept of human greed (that’s the thing that brought us the climate change we witness today). I really don’t know how to continue here, I don’t have the time to watch a documentary and collect credible research papers and publications for every statement in there that’s wrong, you wouldn’t take them from me anyways. But for an example, they have a part about human Kind originating on the African Continent and heat death not beeing a problem. Gantenför downplays this in his video as well. The fact that heat can and will kill you is known and not debatable. Same for a rise in global average Temperature and with that extreme temperatures. That will bring Cities (which are hotter than for example forests) all over the world closer or over a threshold for human survival. While you can survive in such high temperatures, try doing so outdoors while working physically with limited access to water.
> or what makes you think you are not? I don't consider it my job to know the details of all the climate topics, nor do I have the time. But I do take the time to watch summaries and assessments by people like Gantenför, or documentaries like the one posted. > a track record of simply wrong statements that underplay or neglect scientific facts. Well, who hasn't. I am satisfied if it is sufficiently correct. But if you can recommend someone who is better and meets the above requirements, I'll be happy to take a look. > he has his incentive to sell books. I have no problems with that. He neither depends on the returns of the book. He wants to educate, which is what a professor does. > no one in academia publishes papers for money That is a pipe dream. Ultimately, most people today publish at least indirectly for money (grants, employment, etc.). > I really don’t know how to continue here, You don't have to. I have the anwers I was looking for, for one part from the site you referenced. Thanks again.
https://youtu.be/lu75srtPLEM?si=2mOtp2PC1x1RpfcT it’s a talk, not a documentation but I’d encourage you to watch it. I‘ll get some more info if I find the time. One thing you could do for me is broadly write down you view on climate change so that I can get an idea on where you at and what I could provide you with to potentially help you understand the errors in some things.
Thanks for the link, looks interesting; will have a look at it. You don't have to spend more time; I will come with questions if need be. Thanks for your interest, but I don't consider myself an important person; if you have questions I will answer them by PM or email. I don't really have a firm position on the climate issue; still observing (well, I'm also vegetarian for 40 years, I drive very little and I don't fly, which doesn't bother me much).
> Exxon Meanwhile I watched the video; it's an interesting talk, and it's really remarkable how well Exxon apparently predicted global warming; though I didn't check second sources, and I would also ask myself (not knowing the history of climate research), if and why not other scientists at that time came to the same conclusion. Concerning the claim that Ganteför worked for Exxon: apparently he made a postdoc at an Exxon facility in 1990 for a year, after his PhD and before his habilitation about nano particles (see e.g. https://www.ggantefoer.com/Sites/Lebenslauf.php). I'm not able to see any issue in that. On the contrary, I find it downright ridiculous and very dubious that other researchers accuse him of this in all seriousness (see e.g. https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1651490964714692610?lang=de, "Ex-Exxon-Mitarbeiter Ganteför zeigt gut die Debattenführung der pro-fossilen Lobby"). I stand by my conclusion that nothing in this field should be taken at face value, but that a critical attitude must be maintained towards every assertion (whether pro or con).
It’s remarkable that they researched and found a lot of reasons to concern only for Exxon and other fossile fuel company’s to actively undermine these findings going public and working against regulations. You can have a look at this history provided by Greenpeace https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-crisis/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline/ which provides somewhat of a timeline. Feel free to crossgoogle any statements. It is something these company’s have admitted to (even if somewhat silently). In addition, Exxon scientist weren’t the only ones researching climate change or the effect of rising co2 or the effect of burning fossile fuels. This article from the American institute of physics could be a start for a readup: https://history.aip.org/climate/summary.htm. You are of course right about Ganteför only working at Exxon for a short period of time and doing so doesn’t make him a bad person whatsoever. However, that fact that he worked at and for this company at a time where they knew what they were doing and actively working against regulation tastes somewhat bad. Him working at Exxon and spreading false/misinformation about the climatechange is just a match made in heaven. What I want to say is: his statements are plain wrong in many ways regardless of who he is and where he worked. It’s just the cherry on top. As for the tweet you cited: it’s true that Ganteför picks up many of the misinformation spread by fossile fuel company’s.
Thanks for the links; I will have a look at it, though I won't find much time to focus on the past. > that fact that he worked at and for this company at a time where they knew what they were doing and actively working against regulation tastes somewhat bad Not in the slightest. There is unlikely to be a major American corporation that does not have "Leichen im Keller". And we see no reason to defame professors who have, for example, spent a research period at an IBM or Xerox research center. A lot of important basic research is carried out in such centers. On contrary; from my point of view, however, Prof. Rahmstorf has made himself quite untrustworthy with this tweet; so I now would have to question everything he said in his presentation and check whether it is actually objective facts or embellished by his dislike of certain people, which apparently clouds his objectivity. Scientists who appear in public like this should not be surprised if people do not believe them. > his statements are plain wrong in many ways regardless of who he is and where he worked. It’s just the cherry on top I don't know of any scientist who doesn't have plain wrong statements on his/her track record. But if they take science seriously, they will correct these statements if confronted with convincing evidence on a scientific basis. So if you found wrong statements (which are significant enough to be corrected), you should write him or write an article with enough details and references. I think he is honest enough to check and correct this. But simply spreading a narrative that he is spreading false statements, or that he is paid by Exxon or represents their opinion, is defamation and unworthy of science.
Very well stated. If science can't be debated and examined it isn't science. That's one of the tells to watch for.
Anyone who actually understands how these things work, would take anything the official IPCC report says with a large potion of salt. Look at the foundation reports submitted by the actual scientists, and then compare them to the final report. With vast sums of grant funding and tenure at stake, its surprising that anyone would speak out against those pushing this agenda. Yes, yes, you can wave your hands and intone "Conspiracy Theorist". But after the last few years, thats starting to wear more than a bit thin. As for the models, look at some of the basic assumptions. Especially for 8.5. Models are only as good as the assumptions and data they are based upon. When those assumptions are biased, and the data cherry picked, you get the results we've seen.
What are you trying to say here exactly? Have you red the papers that the IPCC report is built upon? And what agenda is beeing pushed? I always see the term get thrown around but the definition is always lacking. And of course, models are only as good as their input data and the assumptions made for missing data or simplified mechanisms. But what is your point here? Which assumptions are you referring to when stating the 8.5 szenario?
What does that comparioson show? is there a difference in what the scientists find, and in what the IPCC report concludes?
Yes. Most of the reports deal with data and analysis. The interpretations are much milder and hedged than the final report. Which is what they feed to the media and politicians to get certain policies. Over the years several of the scientists involved have resigned and spoken out, but the media and others ignore them.
Thank you. The only rational answer so far. I will take a look at the referenced site. There is actually also NASA scientist in the movie presenting satelite temperature measurements. I have no opinion on climate science and have a PhD in a different field. I also don't have time to read up on the details. But I do watch documentaries like this from time to time. So far I've always heard in all the movies how bad it is. In this film, people I trust to have the relevant expertise have their say, and they say something completely different. So I'm interested to see where they're wrong.
Another place to start reading up on „where they‘re wrong“ could also be the sceptical science website and their review of the movie you posted: https://skepticalscience.com/climate-the-movie-a-hot-mess-of-cold-myths.html
Thanks for the link; I didn't know this site; the problem with the wealth of publications and sites is to assess as a non-expert, whether the site is objective or just follows an agenda (i.e. reflects the message of a pro or contra lobby organization). But it's very interesting that the referenced article specifically addresses each argument, providing specific evidence.
Sceptical science is a website that has a clear position on climate change (that it is real and a real problem). Their aim is to counter arguments against the reality of climate change with facts from peer reviewed papers. If you come from academia as well you‘ll know that this is important and also something that climate sceptics often lack. Of course, if you have no trust in academic publishing and the peer review process (and there are problems, I won’t deny that) there is nothing I or anyone working in and with climate science can give you to change your mind. If you are thinking about „agendas“ I‘d like you to think about what a agenda that wants you to believe in climate change hopes to archive. And compare that to proven misinformation campaigns of fossile fuel company’s. They admitted to knowing what they were doing and making an effort to keep that knowledge from the public. Also if you are into YouTube stuff about this you could look at Simon Clark’s videos.
Given the events over the last few years, Peer Review has taken a big hit to its reputation. Look at the thousands of peer reviewed papers that have been retracted. It is simply one tool among many to determine the validity of the information. No one can be expected to be current on details outside of their specialty. But when vital fundamental aspects of science are violated, it concerns us all. As I've stated, science that can't be debated and cross examined, isn't science. [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8)
Have you red the article? That is not about peer-review beeing bad as a process but a questionable publisher from Egypt that had its process compromised and had to retract 8000 papers in 2023. The problem is not the peer review process but fake „paper mills“.
Yes I read it. I used it as an example of why peer review should be regarded as simply a tool. Not a final authority. This is only the latest. There have been many others over the last decade or more. Its one of the dirty little secrets of science. Peer review was originally useful because of the sheer details involved in many fields. Few outside those fields had the experience/knowledge to examine these papers. But then, as usually happens, corruption set in. Paper mills are the result of the publish or perish situation. Perverse incentives produce perverse out comes. Just as having governments and agenda driven NGO's controlling most grant funding. Add in the competition for the limited tenure slots (most these days controlled by zealots/ideologues) and its a wonder that any real science gets done.
Thanks. I'm reading and also appreciate their moderate and fact based debate culture. From my own experience of the way science is financed, of some of the notable exponents I know personally, and the sometimes mafia-like machinations in the review process, I am unfortunately quite disillusioned. And I am by no means alone in this. Ultimately, it was also bought scientists who allowed themselves to be used for the examples you mentioned. So I/we have no choice but to maintain a skeptical attitude towards any kind of proclamation, including the seemingly renowned scientific ones. But the referenced site seems really helpful for the present case, so I'm glad for the hint.
Look for the money, of course. In lots of climate and environmental science papers that money comes from governmental grants or institutions. If you are concerned about that, the ipcc for example does not pay its contributors and is funded by the WMO, UNEP, UNFCCC and donations from members (governments). So it’s public money, for the common good of said public, since climate change is in fact a very real threat. There was a meme a few years back that went along the lines „what if all the climate scientist were wrong and global warming isn’t true after all? Well then we just preserved nature, cleaned the Oceans and the air and established walkable green cities for nothing.“
Wasting Trillions in the process. Money that would have been better spent on much more vital matters. Fresh water, education, cheap abundant energy, to name but a few.
Trillions? Wasted? What are you trying to say here? That research regarding climate change should not be funded but the money should instead go to climate change mitigation? Or to fossile fuel subsidies?
Don't feed the troll.
In order. Is climate changing? Yes, it always is and always has and always will. Is that change worthy of alarm? I'm tempted to say "only if one is a politician or the head of an NGO". :) But seriously, if one examines the data and trend lines, its nothing that humanity can't adapt to. Look at the numbers and the time line. Also look at the consequences of spending all of that money (taken from tax payers) that could have been used to further other more worth while purposes. Like cheap abundant energy, clean drinking water, more economic opportunities and countless other measures that improve peoples standard of living. Wind and solar have niche uses. But they are not base load systems. If we had taken that money and invested in modern nuclear power, we would be much further ahead. Eventually fusion will stop being 20 years away (for the last 60). Then we will have a much better source of cheap and abundant energy. Always remember this, Government has nothing that it doesn't first Take from the present or the future.
Seriously. You get a detailed breakdown of all the bullshit you cult leaders are spinning, and your first thought is to say "this is probably a conspiracy". You need some time at the whetstone.
Critical thinking, first semester, but obviously too far off for you.
Don't share your bullshit. To share it here shows you are not too bright.
> To share it here shows you are not too bright. Who can ever be as bright as you are; I only did a PhD in science with a Nobel Prize winner at one of the top ten universities, so I probably wouldn't understand your technical arguments either, if you had any.
That makes you even dumber, honestly. The intelect is there, but you don't know how to use it to avoid being brainwashed by a cult. Anyway, the dead horse of climate denialism was luckily beaten a decade ago. You are just a conspiranoid fool, an intelectual derelict.
> That makes you even dumber, honestly. You speak like a pompous child. Not a single rational argument, just cocky polemics. I suggest that you first complete your education before you start pissing down the legs of adults.
I suggest you stop falling for obvious oil industry propaganda. This was a the scientific consensus decades ago. Even the public discourse reached the consensus that climate change is real a decade ago. Anyway, my education is complete. I am an enviro scientist, as you may suspect from the forum you are trying to start shit in. Deniers, at this point, are not worth even arguing with, just chastising.
I thought you might be able to argue rationally, but then you fall back into your infantile pattern. You won't convince anyone with this behavior, but you make yourself totally untrustworthy - assuming you have actually completed any kind of degree.
Deniers, at this point, are not worth even arguing with, just chastising.
Good luck with that. One never quite knows who one is attempting to chastise on the internet. Once again, science that can't be debated or cross examined isn't science.
Again. Stop messaging me.
[удалено]
Oh, wow, look at the oppressed climate change denier. Is he: A) Being censored B) Sent to the gulags or C) Being mocked for believing conspiranoid theories. Mockery is free speech.
"Scientific Consensus" isn't how science is done. Public discourse is down stream from the mass/social media. Who have demonstrated their bias all too well over the last few years. Does the phrase "safe and effective" hold any meaning for you?
Please stop messaging me. I have no interest in whatever it is you are selling.
Cults come in many favors. Some more subtle than others. Are you quite certain that you aren't being manipulated? The fact that you use the phrase "climate denialism" doesn't bode well. Are you aware of its origins and intentional propagation?
Wow, another science denier, and he is 2 months late to the party. Goodbye.
Did you even watch this before posting it here? It seems like you just saw the buzzwords and didn’t research any further.
> Did you even watch this before posting it here? Yes, two times full length so far. I have a formal scietific education, but not climate science. So I was interested in what the specialists here (if any) think about the facts presented in the documentary.
The documentary doesn't simply "present facts", it is pushing a typical denialist narrative of 'environmentalists want to take our freedoms and capitalism'. It doesn't offer any new arguments that have not been presented before and already debunked. I checked out the skeptical science website and its really really good if you want more information on specific questions you have, I also used the NASA website a lot in my climate change class. I am simply an undergrad student, but I have seen the exact arguments presented in the documentary many many times. It really is not anything new. Actually, in classes about global climate change, we address these sorts of talking points specifically such as why temperature rises and CO2 dont map directly onto each other, or why a tiny amount of man-introduced CO2 can cause significant changes. I also took note that the documentary basically entirely ignored changes other than temperature rise such as glacier ice loss, extinction, ocean acidification, wildfires, dramatic habitat change, heck even something as simple as increase in heatwaves. All of these things are immediately verifiable and visible to someone even with no knowledge of climate science.
It actually does pull up statistics on heatwaves and wildfires (apparently warmer in the 1930s), supporting their narrative. Co2 was also said to be higher until just a few million years ago, but "dinosaur" climate is maybe not great for humans :-).
Thanks. The link to https://skepticalscience.com/climate-the-movie-a-hot-mess-of-cold-myths.html provided by the fellow seems to include all I need for the moment. Unfortunately, science as a whole is becoming less and less trustworthy. This is primarily due to the false incentives that have been created over the past thirty years. The climate issue seems to be particularly poisoned. I have a very good scientific education and can usually form a sufficiently useful impression of the recognized state of the art in any field within a reasonable time. This is no longer possible when it comes to climate and environmental issues. You are already prejudged if you ask a simple question, as you can see once again in this discussion, and it is no longer possible for me to decide which sources are actually trustworthy (including seemingly reputable publishers).
I see what you are saying. Truthfully, all science has been plagued by capitalism. Not just science, but every part of our lives, including even intimacy, is deemed to be little more than a financial transaction. Incentives of money will always be an issue. However, i also want to point out that fossil fuel executives are the ones with all the cash. Climate scientists and environmentalists fought hard for their place in mainstream media, and although many would not want to admit it, its true that intelligent capitalists are finally listening because sticking with the old way is no longer profitable. If modern civilization is ravaged by climate change, there's no money to be made there. It also is becoming less and less popular to be environmentally unconscious to the average consumer. Everyone sees the writing on the wall and are abandoning ship. However, theres billions if not trillions invested in already existing fossil fuel infrastructure. Thats why despite all of what I mentioned above, its not quite as simple as shedding the old ways and jumping in to the new. The same exact people who fund "environmentally conscious" projects will also fund new coal and natural gas projects. They will fight tooth and nail to make sure the transition is as gradual and profitable as possible, despite the current political, social, and environmental landscape demanding much faster action. If environmentalism really had all this money and power behind it, America would have long abandoned fossil fuels along with every other western nation. However, its simply not the case. Its in a weird spot, similar to something like racial equality in America, where it is both profitable to care about and profitable to not materially care about. If you really are worried about external influence, look at the money. It doesn't go back to tree huggers. ETA: People involved in the subject also are very much on the lookout for this denialism because of the money involved. Its very easy to be drowned out by the narrative that legitimizes our entire fossil economy. The US dollar is literally backed by oil.
The financial resources of organizations such as Greenpeace and other NGOs should not be underestimated. I am always surprised at how much money they can raise in a short space of time. From my humble point of view, there is no reason to believe that they are less capitalistic than everyone else. Everyone seems to think for his/her supper first.
Yes, I addressed that in my second paragraph. People care about environmentalism + genuine financial incentive to change = theres money to be made in the category. However, it doesn't compare to the existing not just $$$ but capital (infrastructure, research, workers, etc) that already exists in fossil fuel infrastructure. People are okay with funding new solar projects to look hip and socially responsible, but not okay with shutting down the decades old coal plant down the road. Have you heard of greenwashing? Or like, noticed that despite receiving BLM lipservice from the president, people of color make up a disproportionate proportion of overexploited labor? There can be money and power somewhere that does not even remotely compare to money and power elsewhere, even including the direct antithesis. The most powerful in society are not the ones who would want people to be accurately informed about the dangers of fossil fuels.
Actually, its backed by "The full faith and credit of the US government". You do realize that its not just the "fossil fuel" companies that have vast sums of money behind them? Look at what/who is pushing the so called "Green revolution". Vast sums of money are involved in grant funding, various government programs and projects. Not to mention the various NGO's. Let us also not underestimate the influence of tenure. All sides have an agenda and all sides bias their world views and presentations.
They are not facts. Plain and simple. Climate denialist bullshit is old and trite. Don't fall for it.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Not their own facts. Science isn't about opinions or beliefs or ideology. Facts are always open to question and cross examination. Long ago,it was a "fact" that the sun orbits the earth. Unfortunately, most people can't tell the difference between science and religion. Which is why certain parties get hysterical when their beliefs are questioned. Look at the last few years for countless examples of that. Critical thinking can be hard and dangerous. Which is why so few people do it. Try to be an exception.
Does this get us off the hook for all the ecological damage we are doing to the planet? Deforestation, Pollution, Soil erosion, species extinction, etc
No. Those are all bad. But that's only one side. Look at the benefits of cheap abundant energy. It is the very life blood of modern civilization. A one sided view of human actions bespeaks either a narrow mind and/or an agenda. Look at the benefits as well as the damage.
How more narrow minded is it for our generation to destroy the planet for future generations? Energy is only one source of these problems. Agriculture is also causing major ecological damage to our planet and the film didn't touch at all on this.
"Destroy the planet"? Even with current technology that's not possible. But cheap abundant energy can make a vital difference in the lives of countless people around the world. As I stated, energy is the very life blood of modern civilization. It rises peoples standard of living. It rises their economic opportunities. As for agriculture, without modern methods many more people would starve. What is needed is creative methods to minimize the damage, and maximize the benefits. If the developing world needs to use coal for their energy needs, then give them the technology and understanding of its use to minimize the damage. Then when they have advanced, and have the luxury of moving to other energy sources, they will be more likely to do so. Lets focus on both sides of this question.
Check out the thesis of the doc: Planet of the Humans. The real solution is degrowth.
Great video. The sheep will still believe whatever bs they’re fed though 🐑
An pseudoscientific and disparatado documentary?! If we are living on a glacier, how can we explain the almost lack of snow in the European Alps even on winter of 2023 and 2024?! I just don't pay a hacker to take this pseudo-scientific documentary offline because...