New study puts a number on what 'Exxon knew' decades ago about climate science | Hacker News Reader

New study puts a number on what 'Exxon knew' decades ago about climate science

phys.org

56 pointspseudolus14 comments

I just saw a new dark pattern. After viewing this 'Exxon' article on phys.org, I clicked to read another phys.org piece, which came up with a google ad blocking view of it, where the only 'close the ad' option was to "give feedback to Google" about it, so I punched "not interested" and it went away. The catch: it was an ad for something in a category that I am quite interested in.

(It looks like the better choice, "ad covered content", was present, but I'd overlooked it because it was leftmost in the options, which were presented horizontally, which seems to be harder for my eyes to parse.)

Another confusing UI display, here in the comments: viewed on Android in desktop view (ONLY), if I want to upvote a comment I'm tempted to click the "upvote" icon closest to the comment, but that one is actually for the next comment.

And an observation: if an urge to fix broken stuff is part of your character, someone malicious can do a denial-of-service attack by throwing broken stuff in your path. This is unfortunate. I'd like to know how to fix it.

(this 'dark pattern' stuff is an aside that I felt ok about putting in a comment here since the substantive discussion about the newly published 'exxon knew' paper was not here, it was happening on another HN post (or perhaps more than one).)

Duplicate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34366696

no. not a duplicate. this one is referencing a completely different article.

the other ones is about if Exxon knew. this one is about the impact of their actions.

This one alone is worth it for the graph. The other one doesn't have the graph.

(I spent most of my time oogling at the graph.)

I actually find the graph confusing because they don't label what the other gray and dashed lines are. Are they just multiple estimates that Exxon made, and dashed lines are simply another shade of gray?

It made a lot more sense skimming the article. Exxon's estimates were +-.

That's an interesting example of what could be a social media dark pattern, to initially link to a less informative (since no graph) article on the [timely thing], and dismiss a later post linking to more informative (with striking graph) coverage, as a duplicate.

Or maybe we are being 'led down the garden path' here, since the graph varies subtly from Supran's.

If you notice who funded this article, then you would see the basis. 99% of scientists believes in whatever for whoever funded them.

Where are you pulling that stat from?

Is blaming Exxon anything more than scapegoating?

I'm not exactly sure what counter-factual history Exxon is supposed to have enabled, if it had taken a stand against its own interests: are we to believe that the last 50 years of fossil fuel use would have been different?

All people are partisan to their own interests; there is nothing wrong with this, and much good about it.

Non-partisan institutions require independent funding, and are therefore largely to be provided by the state.

Unless I'm missing something, I find all this finger-pointing largely scapegoating theatrics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com