
Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978 - ajhaupt7
https://thecompost.io/articles/exxonknew
======
crispinb
Not news of course, but worth restating. Credulous 'scepticism' about the
fundamentals of the climate collapse threat has been largely driven by
corporate propaganda campaigns. Those campaigns were themselves constructed by
people who weren't 'sceptics' \-- they believed AGM was happening -- but
considered their short-term profitability more important. Climate collapse
'sceptics' were nearly all gulls.

~~~
jokoon
This is one way to look at it.

My view is that climate change is a world problem. Governments will not oblige
their citizens to make steps on their consumption if it means reducing their
comfort and their economic power.

Steps should be taken in advance so that once green deals are put in place,
countries can implement those effortlessly.

We often hear that some countries don't make enough efforts, but

1\. Other countries import carbon emitting products

2\. The developed countries of today have emmited greenhouse gases for
decades, which allowed them to become developed countries.

The geopolitics of climate change are extremely difficult. I don't think the
UN is up for it.

Although a better scenario would be to enact tight regulations on a country
basis, but it's a political minefield. Imagine riots because people want to
keep using their cars and trade goods that have become illegal, or vendettas
against people who emit co2.

~~~
chewz
> Governments will not oblige their citizens to make steps on their
> consumption if it means reducing their comfort and their economic power.

Here is the catch - efforts to reduce overconsumption mean slowing economy and
lower tax base. No goverment can afford that.

> Imagine riots because people want to keep using their cars and trade goods
> that have become illegal, or vendettas against people who emit co2.

I believe we are on a verge of Millenial movement of some sort that will make
a matter of enviroment a quasi religion of sorts. That would change the
attitudes.

~~~
solarkraft
> I believe we are on a verge of Millenial movement of some sort that will
> make a matter of enviroment a quasi religion of sorts. That would change the
> attitudes.

It's happening. And I'm really happy about it.

~~~
robbiep
So did everyone in the 60s and at other periods. The world changes, but it’s
no revolution. I’ll believe it when I see it, I remain cautiously optimistic
but have my doubts as to whether the ‘millennials’ will be able to pry
themselves away from their self interest for long enough

~~~
whatshisface
Leaded gasoline, rivers that you can light on fire with a match, and
chlorofluorocarbons are all things that were around America in 1960.

~~~
robbiep
And the world will be a different place in another 50 years, but did the
golden age that all our parents thought was coming in the 60s materialise to
their expectations? let's temper ours lest we grow disappointed and jaded.

Change is slow when viewed in a small timescale, and massive when viewed on a
large one. I hope we sort our shit out, and I will contribute to the best of
my ability to bring this about if at all possible. But, you know, history.

~~~
whatshisface
Aside from the 1950s equivalents of Ray Kurzweil, how many people back then
really thought a golden age was on its way?

------
pier25
It's terrible to think that maybe if Exxon and others didn't invest in
lobbying and disinformation campaigns against climate change maybe humanity
would have started acting 30 years earlier.

It's 2019 and humanity is barely starting to think about acting. Global CO2
emissions keep growing as if we were in "business as usual". Humanity needs to
realize the magnitude of the problem. Climate change is, by far, the biggest
threat it has ever encountered and probably will ever encounter.

The solution will require us to make radical changes to our lifestyle and our
culture. For example, we can't keep having irrational leaders that ignore
basic scientific facts.

~~~
macspoofing
> maybe humanity would have started acting 30 years earlier.

I wouldn't bet on it. We know we can cut emissions today by investing in
nuclear ... and nothing. We could have invested in nuclear power 30 years ago
and prevented trillions of tons of CO2 from being emitted.

Instead we decided wind/solar/natural gas (and those are always package deal)
is our best bet at fighting climate change.

>For example, we can't keep having irrational leaders that ignore basic
scientific facts.

Facts like nuclear power is by far the best and only way to effectively fight
climate change?

~~~
ddebernardy
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-oversaw-the-us-
nucl...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-oversaw-the-us-nuclear-
power-industry-now-i-think-it-should-be-
banned/2019/05/16/a3b8be52-71db-11e9-9eb4-0828f5389013_story.html)

> I oversaw the U.S. nuclear power industry. Now I think it should be banned.

> By Gregory Jaczko

> Gregory Jaczko served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 2005 to
> 2009, and as its chairman from 2009 to 2012.

The author is arguably talking his book, since he invested in a wind power
company. But it's still noteworthy that nuclear physicists and former
regulators don't necessarily agree with you.

~~~
macspoofing
Here's the first line:

>The danger from climate change no longer outweighs the risks of nuclear
accidents.

If that's the assumption, then yes, let's get rid of nukes.

Do you think the risk of nuclear accidents is more important than cutting CO2
emissions?

~~~
ddebernardy
If memory serves me well, the author argues in a nutshell that, until
recently, the risk of nuclear accidents was viewed as low enough that it was
an acceptable one to take to reduce CO2 emissions, whereas nowadays producing
green energy (wind, solar, geothermal) has become cheap enough -- and cheaper
than nuclear, particularly if you factor in storing the waste -- that the
nuclear risk is no longer acceptable.

~~~
macspoofing
>whereas nowadays producing green energy (wind, solar, geothermal) has become
cheap enough

I keep hearing this meme, that either wind/solar is cheaper than X (where X is
coal or nuclear) or is soon to be cheaper. The reality is that they are cheap
and getting cheaper but the point is moot because wind/solar cannot power a
modern economy.

By the way, Geothermal and hydro are great, but we're pretty much done with
them. We've dammed every river that can be dammed and developed every geyser
that can be developed.

>that the nuclear risk is no longer acceptable.

Our only real alternative to nuclear is wind/solar/natural gas (or coal). I
put them as a package deal because they are a package deal. Wind/Solar only
work when coupled with natural gas - this is why Germany is signing multi-
billion natural gas as they are ramping up their wind and solar deployments.
This is why every natural gas company now lobbies for wind and solar
deployments. The problem is that natural gas is destructive to develop (for
example may need fracking to extract) and is a fossil fuel. So if you really
think that CO2 emissions are an existential crisis and cutting them to 0 is
important - nuclear is still the only game in town. Otherwise, you're
investing in natural gas as you are ramping up your solar panels and
windmills.

------
murat124
Former Exxon CEO and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson famously stated
in 2013 during a meeting with Exxonmobil shareholders: "What good is it to
save the planet if humanity suffers"[1]. He explained, "As a species that’s
why we’re all still here: we have spent our entire existence adapting. So we
will adapt to this. It’s an engineering problem, and it has engineering
solutions."

The idea that the humans will somehow adapt to this is the stupidest idea I've
ever heard. Koch bros are pushing the same idea, on the evolutionary level,
that humans will learn to live.

To me humanity is already dead, we are eternally doomed. We just don't know it
yet. It's better to realize and accept it[2], as if we're told we have cancer
and our days are numbered. This is a very pessimistic approach, but it is an
honest one and may help mitigate problems for future generations.

[1] [https://thinkprogress.org/exxon-ceo-what-good-is-it-to-
save-...](https://thinkprogress.org/exxon-ceo-what-good-is-it-to-save-the-
planet-if-humanity-suffers-2befcd55f0b1/)

[2] [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/26/were-
doo...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/26/were-doomed-mayer-
hillman-on-the-climate-reality-no-one-else-will-dare-mention)

~~~
karl11
Fortunately for the rest of us, that optimism has worked pretty well for
thousands of years now. Besides, if you really believe we're doomed, what
difference does it make to you what anyone thinks about anything?

~~~
lostmyoldone
Even if it were true, thousands of years is barely anything on any time scale
that matters. Disregarding that, we've certainly not lived through thousands
of years of global anthropogenic climate change, which is what this is all
about.

It's worth to remember that adaption doesn't necessarily equate survival in
the way we tend to think about it, as dinosaurs adapted too.

Humanity, at least on this planet, is already doomed. The sun will eventually
consume us as a natural part of its life cycle. It's a very long time until
that happens, but life here will eventually end. So as we're already doomed,
should we then do nothing to prevent suffering and pain until then?

It should be a rhetorical question, but apparently it isn't always.

The argument can be made quite simple: As long as we continue to have
children, or accept people having children, we have chosen - as a species - to
not give up on them, and their descendants.

Preserving a livable environment, and preferably much more than livable, is
simply a duty springing from that fact.

There is no need for any deep philosophy, to care for the environment is -
essentially - a consequence of choices already made.

------
FrojoS
Slightly tangential, but I’ve come to the conclusion that this is the
political way forward for big countries:

1\. Have a single CO2 budget for the whole country, with an aggressive, Hard
to change roadmap of yearly reduction of said budget down to zero in the not
too long future.

2\. Estimate the CO2 footprint of every single product, incl. imports by one
or several neutral organizations. This doesn’t have to be perfect as long as
it attempts to be fair.

3\. Tax every product according to this budget using supply/demand markets
(certificates trading).

4\. Redistribute the tax, especially to mitigate the hardship on low income
households and domestic companies.

In my mind, this would create a gigantic incentive for CO2 reduction for your
citizens as well as domestic AND foreign companies. Crucially, it would not
require any global agreement and consensus. Apart from perhaps renegotiation
or canceling of trade agreements on the side of the country that implements
the policy.

Note, that you can replace CO2 by greenhouse gases or environmental impact in
general. I just use it as a shorthandle.

Very curious about your opinions.

~~~
ridicter
There are tons of real world proposals that do this.

Here's one that's in Congress now that you can support: the Energy Innovation
and Carbon Dividend Act
([http://energyinnovationact.org](http://energyinnovationact.org)) . All
revenue from a carbon tax goes to citizens as a yearly check. It has some 30+
cosponsors, including a Republican. A tax at point of source is more efficent
than a per-item budget. Any rising cost of CO2 will be accounted for in the
price of the product. Fossil-fuel-expensive products will cost more.

The group behind this is the Citizens Climate Lobby, which has been advocating
a fee and dividend model for over a decade. It was cofounded by James Hansen,
the NASA scientist who first testified to Congress about the perils of climate
change over 30 years ago.

In addition, if you live in the states of Oregon and New York, both are on the
cusp of passing similar legislation. And there are many more out there in
various stages of development...

~~~
FrojoS
Thank you. I live in Switzerland not the US, so I’m not well informed on US
legislation. What about my points 1 and 2? Is the roadmap reliable and
aggressive, and are all products incl. imported ones included.

~~~
ridicter
This sounds very similar to cap and trade, no? Place a cap on total emissions,
and decrease that cap over time. Correspondingly, have pollution permits that
are allocated according to this cap. Companies that are especially CO2
efficient can sell their extra pollution allowances. Companies that are not
can purchase these pollution allowances. As the cap is set lower and lower
every year, the pollution allowances become more valuable, raising the price
to pollute, or emit CO2. Over time, using fossil fuels becomes more and more
prohibitively expensive, until we eventually transition to a near zero carbon
society.

~~~
FrojoS
Exactly. Cap and trade including all industries and imports and with
aggressive allowances.

------
Reedx
_> The accuracy of their predictions are chilling — they anticipated (in their
"21st Century Study-High Growth Scenario") that in 2020 atmospheric CO2 levels
would fall between 400 and 420 ppm. They also foresaw the accompanying sea
level rise, melting of polar ice sheets, change of rainfall patterns, and
agricultural failures._

Wow. How does this compare to other predictions at the time?

~~~
Maarten88
Maybe they were somewhat later, but Shell oil knew too. They did similar
research and came to the same conclusions. Here is a video they made in 1991
warning about climate change:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTlYYlRN0LY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTlYYlRN0LY)

------
jhellan
We all knew. I learned about CO2 greenhouse warming in high school in 1974. At
a lecture at the University of Trondheim, Norway, around 1980, (in)famous
physicist Edward Teller joked that we of all people shouldn't be worried about
global warming.

~~~
chx
Teller warned the oil industry in _1959_.
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-
consensus-97...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-
consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/01/on-its-hundredth-birthday-in-1959-edward-
teller-warned-the-oil-industry-about-global-warming)

~~~
soulofmischief
I know Teller wanted to come across as calm and respectable so that people
would take him seriously, but if he could look back now he would probably have
acted like a deranged lunatic preaching in the streets about the dangers of
carbon pollution.

I also think the same of Carl Sagan. For all his wonderful and critical
achievements, I bet if he could see how things turned out, he would have
unquestioningly devoted his life to spreading awareness about climate change
here on Earth instead of focusing on astronomy and nuclear war.

------
rdm_blackhole
No surprises there. I don't understand why it took so long to uncover the
truth. Even today, they are just playing the long game using the same tactics
that the tobacco industry used and deny, deny and deny some more.

Hopefully this company one day will be prosecuted.

~~~
perfunctory
It's not hard to imagine that in the future there will be some kind of
Nuremberg trials against people involved in deliberate climate disinformation
campaigns.

~~~
imtringued
The strategy is that you die before the pitchforks arrive.

------
perfunctory
World's richest 10% produce half of global carbon emissions [0] If my math is
right, if the top decile reduced their emissions at least to the level of the
second decide, the global emissions would fall by 30%.

Dear HN crowd, I bet a fair share of us belongs to the top 10%, please reduce
your emissions.

[0]
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/worlds-r...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/worlds-
richest-10-produce-half-of-global-carbon-emissions-says-oxfam)

~~~
the_duke
This report only deals with "lifestyle related emissions", not total
emissions.

A large percentage of emissions is transportation, manufacturing, heating and
electricity.

While the rich will consume more, the effect on total emissions is much lower.

~~~
perfunctory
True. And to be honest I am not sure how lifestyle emissions are calculated.
Does it include the cost of manufacturing and bringing goods to the market?
Can't we argue that most emissions are ultimately lifestyle related?

------
gedy
Maybe no help from Exxon, but US per capita CO2 has been decreasing since
1978. But China and India have increased per capita, which is scary given
their huge populations.

~~~
EForEndeavour
Both US population and absolute US greenhouse gas emissions have been growing
over time. Population has simply grown proportionally faster than emissions.
So yes, US emissions per capita have decreased over time, but total US
emissions have been rising, and that's what affects climate.

~~~
ls612
US emissions have declined about 15% in absolute terms since the early 2000s.
That’s a billion tons less per year. Unfortunately China added about 10
billion tons a year in the same period so it didn’t help very much.

~~~
EForEndeavour
I'm embarrassed that I didn't know total annual US CO2e emissions have
_dropped_ since circa 2005. My only source when I wrote my comment was the in-
browser graph in the Wolfram Alpha search result for "us greenhouse gas
emissions history"
([https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+greenhouse+gas+emis...](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+greenhouse+gas+emissions+history)),
which presents a data period of only 1990-2005. A more complete source is
[https://www.c2es.org/content/u-s-
emissions/](https://www.c2es.org/content/u-s-emissions/).

Thank you for reminding me not to hastily extrapolate data when it happens to
fit my expectation of what's going on, and when actual data are readily
available.

------
soulofmischief
I made a choice-based game a few months ago about dealing with the political
realities of climate change, inspired by Sara Teasdale and Ray Bradbury's
_There Will Come Soft Rains_.

You can play it online here:
[https://tinyurl.com/43softrains-v1-1](https://tinyurl.com/43softrains-v1-1)

I have been considering pursuing funding for making similar choice-based games
like this one and integrating them with classroom curriculums.

~~~
the_duke
This is very cool!

Is the code open source? I would love to have a translated version of this and
encourage the younger members of my family to play it.

~~~
soulofmischief
Glad you liked it. Here you go: [https://github.com/bad-software/there-will-
come-soft-rains](https://github.com/bad-software/there-will-come-soft-rains)

What languages are you interested in seeing?

------
akerro
No surprises here, also Shell knew that. Documents show they knew that in
'80s, later they renew research in '90s:

[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=shell+knew+about+global+warming&t=...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=shell+knew+about+global+warming&t=ffab&ia=web)

------
mikeash
Remember this the next time someone tries to tell you that oil companies are
just giving customers what they demand and that the companies themselves
aren’t at fault.

~~~
jefflombardjr
Relevant to your comment:
[https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/15263800131...](https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/152638001316881395)

The individualization of environmental problems is a serious obstacle. "We
need to stop buying and using plastic water bottles" needs to become "Pepsico
and Coke need to stop producing trash."

------
cbHXBY1D
Almost everyone on HN recognizes that climate change is an existential threat
to (most) life on earth. There is less agreement on how to mitigate it's
effects.

One solution which I favor is nationalization of US oil companies. While
hardly discussed in the US, it's a solution that is currently being discussed
in the UK and has been done by many different countries, though usually
because of the legacy of imperialism and colonialism. Overtime I have come to
the realization free market solutions and incentives are incapable of spurring
the changes needed to transition to a cleaner form of energy, especially with
the short time scale we have before results are disastrous.

~~~
radford-neal
"Almost everyone on HN recognizes that climate change is an existential threat
to (most) life on earth."

No. There are no even remotely plausible scenarios in which most life (say,
all mammals, to pick something specific) go extinct due to climate change
caused by human CO2 emissions. If you think that, you have been lied to - and
have not been smart enough to recognize the lies.

~~~
cbHXBY1D
Did you read the recent IPBES Global Assessment? An article on it from the
NYT: [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/climate/biodiversity-
exti...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/climate/biodiversity-extinction-
united-nations.html)

"Unless nations step up their efforts to protect what natural habitats are
left, they could witness the disappearance of 40 percent of amphibian species,
one-third of marine mammals and one-third of reef-forming corals. More than
500,000 land species, the report said, do not have enough natural habitat left
to ensure their long-term survival."

A summary can be found here:
[https://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/spm_uned...](https://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/spm_unedited_advance_for_posting_htn.pdf)

~~~
radford-neal
Talk of "efforts to protect what natural habitats are left" does not seem to
relate to warming from CO2 emissions. Except, that is, that if you're
concerned about protecting habitats, you should be concerned about some of the
boondoggles destroying them that are justified by "global warming" alarmism -
such as replacing natural forests with monocultures of trees that are
converted to pellets and shipped long distances to be burned in place of coal.
See [https://www.draxbiomass.com](https://www.draxbiomass.com)

Also, "one-third" is not "most".

~~~
madaxe_again
Almost every one of your posts here is to refute climate change.

Someone could be forgiven for thinking you have an interest in fossil fuels.

Edit: I see from your CV that you have a history of working with the fossil
fuel industry - specifically, Exxon in Calgary in the early 80’s. I think it’s
safe to disregard anything you have to say on the topic.

~~~
sctb
> _Please don 't make insinuations about astroturfing. It degrades discussion
> and is usually mistaken. If you're worried, email us and we'll look at the
> data._

Besides this, it's rude to address other community members this way. Just
email us at hn@ycombinator.com if you have such concerns, we take them
seriously and we have better options for addressing them.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
merpnderp
Aren’t the people who fought nuclear power in the 80’s just as culpable? Would
there still be any coal plants running if we’d started to move to carbon free
sources back then?

------
iconjack
Also 1978: "International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30‐Year
Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere"

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/05/archives/international-
te...](https://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/05/archives/international-team-of-
specialists-finds-no-end-in-sight-to-30year.html)

------
stefek99
It is a well-known fact, just wondering since when it is news?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_cont...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy)

------
thunderrabbit
This "entertains" me in a perverse way. _I_ knew fossil fuels were harming the
environment in 1978, and I was only a kid at the time.

Exhaust stank, looked dirty. Doesn't take much to figure it out.

~~~
frittig
Vaccines hurt, vegetables taste bad and taking drugs feels good. Your ideology
is flawed.

~~~
ramblerman
Well, if you don't trust your senses at all, perhaps yours is too.

------
stefek99
This is a potential strategy to tackle it:
[https://genesis.re/wiki#Plan_B](https://genesis.re/wiki#Plan_B)

(decentralized innovation as politics is too slow)

------
imagetic
[http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/](http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-
arctic/)

------
glandium
AsapScience video on the subject:
[https://youtu.be/TbW_1MtC2So](https://youtu.be/TbW_1MtC2So)

------
rorykoehler
There are articles that are over 100 years old that point out fossil fuels
cause climate change. Surely they knew far earlier than 1978?

~~~
dcl
Those earlier articles made educated guesses that the greenhouse effect would
eventually come in to play. Exxon attempted to model the effect to work out
the possible impact.

------
0x262d
this is an example of what one could sarcastically describe as a "market
failure"

~~~
trophycase
When externalities aren't priced. It isn't a "free market"

~~~
0x262d
does anyone who is opposed to planned markets ever talk about the information
complexity of accounting for all externalities? genuine question.

------
caminante
OP do you have a connection to the blog? I noticed your submission history
favors it.

~~~
ajhaupt7
Yep, I'm the author + developer -- hope there isn't a problem with posting
your own content. I think there's value in it!

~~~
throwaway66666
I (not a mod, just your a regular HN user) think it's perfectly fine to post
your own content. As long as you don't spam it, and you don't post over-
flattering headlines for it. And definitely way better than posting your
content under a guise of an "unafilliated" friend. It will reach the front
page and stay here only if it's good, so who cares if it came straight from
the wolf's mouth.

Also pretty creepy that people go down post comments history to check who it
is and where you 're coming from. Eh.

~~~
reitanqild
Not sure how to vote this:

Totally agree with the first part.

The second part describes a thing I regularily do as "pretty creepy". To
clarify: before deciding to flag, downvote or vouch for someone I might have a
look at their comment history to see if I am misunderstanding something.

Also if someone posts something nice I look through their history to find more
good comments.

I don't think I'm the only one who does this and in fact I'd recommend it
instead of blindly thinking "troll" and hit downvote and flag whenever one
sees something one doesn't agree with.

~~~
throwaway66666
I did not mean to offend you. And I am sorry I used that terminology. To me it
felt odd that if you reach the front page suddenly eyes are looking at your
history and everything you have done.

If you put yourself out there, suddenly eyes are watching everything. That
seemed a bit scary (and again sorry for using emotional words), though of
course makes sense why it happens.

But in general, I fully agree with you. There are many reasons to do it, and
perhaps it's even helpful when something is not clear and you want to
understand better where someone is coming from, as you said.

Apologies again.

~~~
reitanqild
> If you put yourself out there, suddenly eyes are watching everything. That
> seemed a bit scary (and again sorry for using emotional words), though of
> course makes sense why it happens.

I'm painfully aware. Which is why I often use this account :-)

> Apologies again.

No need for that after you cleared it up. I might even have been too harsh
myself. I actually prefer if there is some room for thought here and I might
have read more into your original post than you intended.

------
bobowzki
This was known around 1900

------
ptah
How is this not illegal?

~~~
mcv
They're rich and important?

------
crimsonalucard
What do we expect? If your purpose in life was found to be a total lie. Do you
bury the truth and deny it to yourself and the world? Or do you commit
suicide?

Every fossil fuel company is going to lie their pants off because that's what
you and all other humans would do if they got into the same situation.

~~~
reitanqild
> Every fossil fuel company is going to lie their pants off because that's
> what you and all other humans would do if they got into the same situation.

Speak for yourself.

1\. A good number of people actually have a spine. I'd not say the majority
"is good && have a spine" but enough that you are lying.

2\. It doesn't help at all to spread the lie that everyone else lying.

Speaking as someone who has been embarassingly honest, and who also admires
his friend who came back and admitted he'd been laughing at me behind my back.

~~~
crimsonalucard
Speak for myself? I speak for humanity. And did you just call me a liar? Maybe
a better way to disagree with me is to say you think I'm mistaken than to call
me a liar.

What do you think religion is except for one big lie? Muslims and Christian's
can't both be right, either one of them is right or neither of them. That puts
a major portion of the world population gauraunteed to be delusional.
Delusional behavior as a corporation like Exxon follows. This is logic you
can't deny it.

You apparently are better than most humans since you brag about your ability
to be embarrassingly honest.

~~~
reitanqild
History is full of people who faced severe consequences or even death instead
of lying. What you said was literally (emphasis mine):

> that's what you _and all other humans would do_ if they got into the same
> situation.

Which is literally false if history books and court records are to be belived.

As for religion, people can both be honest and mistaken.

Honesty is about intent, not about being verifyable true.

So while two must be technically wrong, honest Muslims and honest Christians
might very well co-exist with honest Atheists.

~~~
crimsonalucard
Social sciences and questions about how a mass population would behave are
always fuzzy. Some people would and some people wouldn't. My argument is that
most people would lie to others and themselves, so much so that it encompasses
the greater majority. Although I said all people, I would argue that common
sense implies the phrase "almost all" because such absolute answers don't
exist in the social sciences or sciences in general.

Also I didn't emphasize hard choices involving death. I was referring to
life's work. Something you believed to be true your entire life and suddenly
you have to give it all up because it's not true. (Think religion and
evolution). There are examples of people slowly accepting the truth rather
than instantly but even those are few and far in between. To maintain the
illusion people build scaffolds like intelligent design to make sure their old
frameworks fit the new ones.

I'm not talking about coexistence either. There is no need to bring that topic
up. The only fact to support my thesis here is that part of the population is
verfiably delusional for sure.

I also disagree with you about honesty. It's more complex than that. People
can lie to themselves. Their biases can mold their behavior to the point where
they deny logic. One religion must be wrong and those people will fight to the
death for their beliefs just like how a fossil fuel company must be wrong and
they will fight to the deaths for their beliefs.

------
bnolsen
Having now been in China for several weeks this beating the drum trying to
make americans feel guilty (and give power over to other people) is absolutely
absurd. You want to control pollution the first places to start are china and
india. The US in comparison produces negligible impact.

~~~
torpfactory
That is simply not true. The US may not produce as much visible pollution
anymore, but we still emit a ton of carbon. Canada, Australia, and Saudi
Arabia are all about as much or more than us but China is significantly less
per capita.

[https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-
impacts/sc...](https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-
impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html)

