Hacker News Reader

Comment by snowpid | Hacker News Reader

This paper generates an interesting research policy question: Why was Exxon able to create equal or better projections than the NASA?

View on HN

> Why was Exxon able to create equal or better projections than the NASA?

Focus?

Climate change, and the elimination of the use of carbon fuels (oil), would potentially existential threat to Exxon, so they better know everything about it. NASA has a whole bunch of things to focus on in addition to climate.

it might be not the only factor but at least a clear distinction.

In the last few years they have dropped their recruiting significantly but ExxonMobil recruited Ph.D’s from the best universities for decades. Lots and lots of VERY smart people work there.

Unlike at NASA where they hire everyone?

NASA folk are more naive ivory tower types where as ExxonMobil are more practical, pessimistic types.

Doesn't apply to the JPL folks I've met throughout my life but for the rest I guess I have to take your word for it. I'm not sure if your comment was just a sarcastic joke though, in which case I completely missed it

my BIL started in geology but ended up with a Ph.D in biology. I tried to get him to goto work for ExxonMobile (or somewhere in oil/gas) but he said he wasn't interested in selling his soul. Now, after half a decade, he's still looking for a steady job and makes holsters and knife accessories and sells them online to make ends meet. On one hand, I admire his stubbornness but on the other hand, i wish he wasn't so stubborn.

Just a gut feeling, but Exxon has way more skin in the game than NASA does from a financial point of view since this is an existential threat to their business. That being said, we've always all had skin in the game, we just didn't realize it.

More money in it

Can you quote a source?

Do I need to? It is entirely logical that Exxon would research the things that are either a threat to, or benefit to their future profits. The larger the potential, the more research.

but otherwise NASA could put more money into climate research and researchers have a more open enviroment. One liner explaination most of time arent very good and therefore my question.

You have no idea about NASA’s budget

NASA's budget is publicly available.

It's substantially smaller than Exxon Mobil's. (Plus, some of Exxon's budget went to casting doubt on others' research.)

Exxon Mobil does not exclusively put mony into climate research and it didnt do it very likely in the 70s.

NASA doesn't exclusively put money into climate research, either.

They might do more. Above explaination does not nail it, that is the point.

They knew the real numbers and weren't having to guesss? What they were required to report to regulators missed the whole truth but internally they could accurately calculate the situation.

Last I checked, Exxon was in the business of selling oil not burning it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com