Hacker News Reader

Comment by tjansen | Hacker News Reader

I can't know what research is 'made-up' and what isn't. I just know that it's not helpful as an argument to always claim that the other side it lying.

View on HN

There is no other side in this case in my humble opinion. What we have is overwhelming scientific evidence supporting climate change, and some made-up research paid by carbon industry lobbies, like some of the organizations funded by google mentioned in the article, which deny climate change.

Does any of them literally deny climate change?

I did a quick Wikipedia check on first two of the mentioned organizations, CEI and the Heartland Institute. Both seem to acknowledge that the climate changes because of human action. They are called 'climate deniers' because the other side does not agree with them on policies.

I haven't been precise enough, sorry. They deny that drastic carbon reductions are needed as a result of climate change. In other words, they deny that climate change is the cause of carbon emissions, which to me is denying climate change.

https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publication...

In this new volume, 117 scientists, economists, and other experts address and refute IPCC’s claim that the impacts of climate change on human well-being and the natural environment justify dramatic reductions in the use of fossil fuels

Once you've overloaded the term "climate change" to exclusively have that specific meaning, how would you refer to any potential past, present, or future change in the planet's climate that doesn't fall into that narrow definition?

I agree that this paper, at least the 'summary for policymakers', is trash and comes pretty close to denying. It scratches on the surface of some good points, but doesn't follow through. But even then, I rather have someone offer a (stupid) counter-argument than no counter-argument at all.

> climate change is the cause of carbon emissions

Climate change is the cause of carbon emissions? So what does that mean, we have to have an ice age to eliminate fossil fuels? How do we do that, lots of nuclear testing?

The Heartland Institute that puts up Unabomber posters of "I still believe in climate change, do you?", advocates for coal, tobacco and fracking, and against any move to renewables.

Solely from Wikipedia. Given the extent of their policies denying the link between tobacco and health, between climate change and human activity (or it's a good thing really), I think you massively underplay why they attracted a label "denier".

On both tobacco and climate they are denying in the face of overwhelming evidence. Tobacco alone is enough for me to consider them entirely unethical and working against the public interest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com