Inside Exxon’s Strategy to Downplay Climate Change

Internal documents show what the oil giant said publicly was very different from how it approached the issue privately in the Tillerson era

Let's just assume there's competing narratives. How do you tell which one to subscribe to? Assuming it's not false reporting, a majority of scientists state there's a climate crisis and biodiversity crisis looming or already there. Obviously, from a purely logical standpoint I can't claim "the climate crisis is happening because almost all scientists say so" but heuristically that's how we tend to have to operate. And to an important extent the IPCC reports do try to make the science understandable to laymen, if you've read it.

So I kind of miss what exactly is the relevance of pointing out that it's a narrative to assume the science in favour of the global warming hypothese is right or a "fact"? Technically those claims go to far but for the purposes of discussion I've found alternative narratives easy to disprove. — Benkei

Suspend judgment, let it play out and observe. In the midst of chaos, it is prudent to remain calm, panic will only serve to exacerbate the chaos.

One explanation for the abundance of scientists who support the official narrative is because there is not much of a career left for them if they go rogue. Now that the official narrative has become scientific dogma, the entire institution works toward advancing it, and there is even less incentive for scientist to investigate anything that might contradict the official narrative.

Another thing that doesn't sit well with me is that those pushing the official climate crisis narrative would also agree that science (the very same science that they use to support the official narrative) is an oppressive institution that has grown directly out of the patriarchy and white imperialism. In that context, how can I possibly be expected to put my faith in such a tyrannical and fascist charade? Or does it just happen to be the greatest coincidence ever, and climate change science just happens to be the only field in that entire institution that is not racist and sexist?

Let's just assume there's competing narratives. How do you tell which one to subscribe to? — Benkei

You figure out which interest groups are pushing which narratives, and decide which one you trust more mistrust the least.

The end-of-the-world narrative is an Indo-European motif. The climate crisis is Armageddon. Capitalism is the Antichrist. I'm talking about the emotional form of it, not the scientific part. — frank

That is a solid analysis.

That doesn't mean the end isn't really near. In fact the world is ending all the time. And that's what it's really about: time.

Any good textbook on global warming will have a section on the philosophical challenge of climate change: that this problem will always be with us as long as coal is around to burn. As a species, we have no experience addressing a problem that extends beyond about a hundred years. This problem extends for thousands upon thousands. The real problem is time. — frank

That makes sense. The human lifespan is less than 100 years. And within that time everyone has plenty of problems to deal with on a daily basis, which makes it hard to justify the investment of limited time and energy on a problem that is predicted (rightly or wrongly) to arise after you are dead.

One explanation for the abundance of scientists who support for the official narrative is because there is not much of a career left for them if they go rogue. [...] — Merkwurdichliebe

Alternatively, there's sufficient/overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic climate change. After all, scientists point at available evidence, not at "narratives" or "whatever people's opinions".

Notice how the quote, or something similar, could be raised on any topic with a general consensus, to pseudo-level an unlevel world. Casting it as a truth-independent or conspiracy'esque game instead, has become trendy I guess.

also mentioned biodiversity impairment, which is related — humans all over the place, population growth, deforestation, pollution, nature/wildlife displacement, extinctions, renewability, ...

That makes sense. The human lifespan is less than 100 years. And within that time everyone has plenty of problems to deal with on a daily basis, which makes it hard to justify the investment of limited time and energy on a problem that is predicted (rightly or wrongly) to arise after you are dead. — Merkwurdichliebe

Exactly. Imagine that we manage to end fossil fuel use. In a thousand years humans have forgotten that we did that and they go back to using coal and petroleum. Transmitting an imperative to people a thousand years in the future is just beyond anything we've ever done.

If you take a class in global warming at a university, they go over this. It's part of comprehending the true dimensions of the problem.

Transmitting an imperative to people a thousand years in the future is just beyond anything we've ever done. — frank

Is that possible in the slightest. Parents can barely impart their ethics to their children. Maybe if time travel were invented. But that would mean it has already been invented.

you take a class in global warming at a university, they go over this. It's part of comprehending the true dimensions of the problem. — frank

The topic is not as cut and dried as the official narrative portrays it.

No no no, reading a thermometer is a narrative.

This analysis holds up. Life has evolved over billions of years. Evolution isn’t a fact— it’s an official narrative. Scientists are forced into conforming.

This way we don’t have to learn anything or understand the subject. Just use this analysis and feel special/sound super smart.

Is that possible in the slightest. Parents can barely impart their ethics to their children. Maybe if time travel were invented. But that would mean it has already been invented. — Merkwurdichliebe

The human race could split it two. One branch lives underground and stays technologically and intellectually sophisticated. The other branch lives on the surface and has reverted to stone age life. The people who live underground have a static social order and they routinely blitz the surface dwellers so they can never advance and start doing crazy stuff like burning coal. This goes on for thousands of years until Yellowstone blows up and initiates the Age of Insects where ant supercolonies develop intellectual sophistication and pizza that isn't fattening.

The topic is not as cut and dried as the official narrative portrays it. — Merkwurdichliebe

How do you know?

Alternatively, there's sufficient/overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic climate change. After all, scientists point at available evidence, not at "narratives" or "whatever people's opinions". — jorndoe

Scientists are not infallible, they are human like everyone else. And the human urge to go along with the popular trend is quite strong, especially when doing so would help in furthering one's career. Hence, to think that scientists at large would orient their scientific labor in support of an official narrative is not at all unreasonable to consider.

Notice how the quote, or something similar, could be raised on any topic with a general consensus, to pseudo-level an unlevel world. Casting it as a truth-independent or conspiracy'esque game instead, has become trendy I guess. — jorndoe

Speaking of trends, have you ever noticed how climate change is very often conveyed in outrageous alarmist language by those who have bought into the official narrative.

humans all over the place, population growth, deforestation, pollution, nature/wildlife displacement, extinctions, renewability, — jorndoe

The rising of global temperature is due to burning fossil fuels, deforestation and agricultural practices. That exacerbates flooding, draughts, wildfires, stronger hurricanes, icecap melting, sea level rise, etc. — Mikie

Very Marcusian languange, by the way.

I suppose, when you dig deep enough, it is all a "conspiracy'esque game". In my case, my conspiracy theory is called skepticism, and its central axiom is: if it looks like bullshit, talks like bullshit, walks like bullshit, and smells like bullshit, it is most likely bullshit.

The people who live underground have a static social order and they routinely blitz the surface dwellers so they can never advance and start doing crazy stuff like burning coal. This goes on for thousands of years until Yellowstone blows up and initiates the Age of Insects where ant supercolonies develop intellectual sophistication and pizza that isn't fattening. — frank

:rofl: im sold

How do you know? — frank

if it looks like bullshit, talks like bullshit, walks like bullshit, and smells like bullshit, it is most likely bullshit. — Merkwurdichliebe

The most believable bullshit always has a kernel of truth. It is propaganda 101. And anytime i see alarmist bullshit being utilized to centralize power and impose greater control over the multitudes, i get real suspicious.

This analysis holds up. Life has evolved over billions of years. Evolution isn’t a fact— it’s an official narrative. Scientists are forced into conforming. — Mikie

Evolutionist aren't attempting to radically transform all society based on some trumped up, overblown crisis.

The most believable bullshit always has a kernel of truth. It is propaganda 101. And anytime i see alarmist bullshit being utilized to centralize power and impose greater control over the multitudes, i get real suspicious. — Merkwurdichliebe

Insect supercolonies don't have this problem. It's why they end up taking over the world.

Insect supercolonies don't have this problem. It's why they end up taking over the world. — frank

They give rise to the bird race!

They give rise to the bird race! — Merkwurdichliebe

the what?

the what? — frank

The bird race that feeds on the insects.?.? :chin:

The bird race that feeds on the insects.?.? — Merkwurdichliebe

The birds died out when Yellowstone blew up. The insects keep bird fossils in their museums.

Exactly— forget the evidence, and forget understanding the science. Just apply said analysis and presto— sit back and feel good about yourself.

I myself like to go to universities and talk about how physicists are buying into the official narrative of gravity.

Evolutionist aren't attempting — Merkwurdichliebe

Creationists would disagree. Go talk to one— you’ll fit right in.

Scientists are not infallible, they are human like everyone else. And the human urge to go along with the popular trend is quite strong, especially when doing so would help in furthering one's career. Hence, to think that scientists at large would orient their scientific labor in support of an official narrative is not at all unreasonable to consider. — Merkwurdichliebe

Not ureasonable I suppose, for someone with a lack of experience with science and scientists. However, regardless of how reasonably understood it might be, that you hold that view (being as ignorant as you demonstrate yourself to be) ignorant conspiracy theory rationalization is what it is.

Not ureasonable I suppose for someone with a lack of experience with science and scientists. However, regardless of how reasonably understood it might be that you hold that view (being as ignorant as you demonstrate yourself to be) ignorant conspiracy theory rationalization is what it is. — wonderer1

And that's another point of suspicion. How desperate and juvenile climate crisis activists become in the face of opposition to their dogmatism. There is a definite religious zealotry to it all. Makes me all the more justified in rejecting it.

Exactly— forget the evidence, and forget understanding the science. Just apply said analysis and presto— sit back and feel good about yourself. — Mikie

I wish my world was as black and white as yours.

One explanation for the abundance of scientists who support for the official narrative is because there is not much of a career left for them if they go rogue. [...] — Merkwurdichliebe

Notice how the quote, or something similar, could be raised on any topic with a general consensus, to pseudo-level an unlevel world. Casting it as a truth-independent or conspiracy'esque game instead, has become trendy I guess. — jorndoe

Cool, here's an even more generic argument:

Scientists are not infallible, they are human like everyone else. [...] — Merkwurdichliebe

Science begone, the lot. Nothing to see here. Sort of p0m0'ish, too.

By the way, I already differentiated the people and the evidence they point at:

Alternatively, there's sufficient/overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic climate change. After all, scientists point at available evidence, not at "narratives" or "whatever people's opinions". — jorndoe

In my case, my conspiracy theory is called skepticism — Merkwurdichliebe

There are also round-Earth skeptics, E=mc² skeptics, germ skeptics, Moon landing skeptics, biological evolution skeptics, you name it. (skepticism ≠ denial ∧ skepticism ≠ post-truth)

There is a definite religious zealotry to it all. Makes me all the more justified in rejecting it. — Merkwurdichliebe

Isn't that a genetic fallacy? No, not quite. Maybe ad odium? Or an association fallacy.

Let climate deniers be climate deniers. The religion belongs to them. The analysis is easy, and requires nothing but conspiracies and cheap skepticism. This way they don’t have to bother listening to people who spend their lives to the subject — or really learn anything at all. Because that requires effort. Creationists are on the same level— same arguments, in fact.

It’s also hilarious watching them devolve into blithering imbeciles when their feeble accusations are put to the most mild scrutiny.

I think the best thing to do from this point on is ignore them…or respond with satire (which they won’t notice). You do you, of course.



:up:

There's a scene in the movie 200 that comes to mind with regard to climate change narratives. It's about Xerxes, who is about 20 feet tall for some reason. Did you see it?

blithering imbeciles — Mikie

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it.” --Mark Twain

:lol: :up:

I like this one. Apropos of the recent level of participants in this thread:



“Some people say global warming is real — and then the really smart people, they know it’s a ruse invented by the Illuminati.”

Isn't that a genetic fallacy? No, not quite. Maybe ad odium? Or an association fallacy. — jorndoe

It is argumentum ad lapidem

Let climate deniers be climate deniers. — Mikie

Who exactly is 'denying climate'?