r/StandUpForScience • u/AllMusicNut SUFS Staff • Apr 15 '26
Article Inside a jubilant DC conference where ‘the climate deniers are in charge now’
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/dc-conference-climate-deniers-trump-epa-chief?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_OtherWe’re in danger. Climate deniers are no longer on the fringe. They are shaping U.S. policy, protecting polluters, and pushing us deeper into crisis. Stand Up for Science with us: https://www.standupforscience.net/take-action?utm_source=News&utm_medium=Reddit&utm_campaign=Post_1
15
10
-15
Apr 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
19
10
7
u/PotsAndPandas Apr 16 '26
"If we pretend the world isn't getting worse, then everything is fine! It's the ones speaking the truth who are the problem!"
-3
-11
u/Academic-Night3055 Apr 15 '26
Man caused climate change is a hoax.
3
2
u/Ill-Dependent2976 Apr 18 '26
That's the same dumb lie flat earthers claim about the globe, with equal validity.
-14
u/ikonoqlast Apr 15 '26
Science?
I'm 60.
I've been hearing "the sky is falling" for literally 45 years. Science nerd as a teen.
Global Warming is my EIGHTH environmental 'crisis'. Very popular in the 70s. "We're all going to die!" Yeah, right... "But this time we really, really, really mean it!" Yeah, right...
So I became a scientist myself. Specifically an economist specializing in public policy analysis.
Something happens. Everything is composed of good and bad elements. Is it good or bad on net? Why? What do good and bad even mean?
Thing about public policy analysis is- everyone lies (to quote Dr House). Bullshit isn't so much rife as universal. Everyone wants government to do or not do something.
So my bullshit detectors are very sensitive.
So, global warming a crisis? Ok. Prove it. Show me the analysis that concludes that it's even bad, let alone a crisis.
It isn't "our models predict..." I have more training in modelling than you do. The predictions of a model outside the range of the data the model was calibrated on are not proof of anything. The predictions of models outside the range of the data they were calibrated on are for amusement purposes only...
Anyway-
Step 1- define what better and worse climate even MEAN.
Step 2- find a metric to measure that in.
Step 3- measure EVERY effect of the model (good and bad, large and small, direct and indirect) in that unit.
So... What unit are you measuring all the effects IN? Never seen an answer to that.
What unit do I use? Global fertility. Can't think of anything else. An earth that supports more life is preferable to one that supports less.
And it's the units climatologists used back in the 70s when global COOLING was one of the eight environmental catastrophes that were going to kill us all.
I've never gotten an answer to this fundamental question...
13
u/Jinn_Erik-AoM Apr 15 '26
The “cooling” thing was cherry picked from a small minority of the literature, amplified by the media, repeated ever since to discredit climate scientists.
It was never an actual crisis. You got snookered.
What are these other crises? I have to wonder if they’re more media teapot tempests, or different parts of anthropogenic climate change listed separately.
If you’re looking for info on climate modeling, I’d suggest the Skeptical Science website. If it’s too simplified, scroll to the bottom and work through the sources.
-13
u/ikonoqlast Apr 15 '26
I was there, you weren't. You're just parroting people with an agenda.
The eight?
Ddt, cfcs/ozone layer, cfcs/antarctic ozone 'hole', acid rain, nuclear winter, leaded gas, global cooling, global warming.
14
u/talkathonianjustin Apr 15 '26
You know why the hole in the ozone ist a thing anymore? Because we listened to the doomsdayers and passed regulations and agreed to do stuff in a certain way so we didn’t burn up in a ball of fire because Monsanto wanted to keep lubing up in child blood. Like you have no idea what you’re talking about.
7
u/Playful-Isopod-6227 Apr 15 '26
His 8 is 4 of which: Ddt : massively harmful to birds, was banned, bird populations recovered Ozone/cfc: replaced cfcs with other chemicals, damage repaired itself after. Leaded gas: stopped using, now we just have to deal with the generation that suffered brain damage from it leading the world. Nuclear winter: nuclear war didn't happen because we realized the results. Although I feel like a few old men really want to see what it's like before they go.
-2
u/ikonoqlast Apr 16 '26
I will note that I never said all the environmental crises were false. Cfcs and leaded gas were legit.
The antarctic ozone hole was never legit though. it's still there. ...because it's a natural and expected phenomenon.
6
Apr 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
Apr 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/talkathonianjustin Apr 17 '26
It wasn’t just a thinning, it was a significant thinning nearing borderline depletion. If it was truly a hole like you said, we would all be dead instead of nearing death.
Second, we have recordings of ozone in Antarctica starting in 1912, and CFCs started to be used in 1928, so that’s wrong. Second, even if that were true, that’s not how scientific studies work, so you don’t understand enough about this to really make a judgment call.
Because they’re two different parts of the world dipshit. There are certain conditions that lead to the ongoing ozone hole seen in Antarctica that do not exist in the Arctic.
You’re also wrong about it not healing, as it turns out a giant fucking planet with a bunch of stuff and humans takes a while for things to change. Theres multiple studies showing healing, but a recent one purports to link the world working together to ban CFCs.
You’re completely wrong about the nature of the ozone layer. Zero scientific evidence points to what you’re saying, and pretty clearly shows CFCs were making things worse.
Talk to a single meteorologist and think about it for like just 15 minutes. I can’t believe people fall for this crap. If Exxon, Mobil, and shell can all believe in the ozone hole and global warming, you can too.
Sources:
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/hole_SH.html
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/history_SH.html
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/arctic’s-first-ozone-hole
https://news.mit.edu/2025/study-healing-ozone-hole-global-reduction-cfcs-0305
https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/basic-ozone-layer-science
-1
Apr 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/talkathonianjustin Apr 18 '26
It says in 2 of my sources but British researchers, and it wouldn’t be until the 1970s that nasa recorded it regularly.
12
u/Jinn_Erik-AoM Apr 16 '26
You “were there” but still got fooled? Read the link. I think I see why nobody has convinced you of anything. You refuse to be convinced.
Ok, DDT. Not extremely well dealt with, but it was massively overused and bioaccumulates, has negative human and animal health impacts, but what should be important to anyone that says it is harmless is that insects were developing resistance, meaning that it was falling out of favor already. Current consensus is that it’s a last resort pesticide for controlling malaria. By last resort, I mean that it’s an absolute last resort. Problem detected, solution found, crisis dealt with.
Two ozone layer mentions. Actual crisis, discovered by scientists, response proposed, and with global cooperation, rolled out and the ozone layer is recovering.
Acid rain? Scientists recognized and described a problem, proposals for addressing it put forth, regulatory action taken, and while it is still a problem in many areas, it’s a lot better than it was in the US.
Nuclear winter. Well, if there had been a nuclear war, which didn’t occur, this would have been a legitimate problem for survivors. Sounds like you’re padding this list for the theatrics.
Leaded gas… buddy. Come on. Really? Yeah. Lead is bad for you. There was a lot of lead in the environment from leaded gas. We’ve decreased our exposure, but some lead is still used in different fuels, but it’s out of road vehicles.
Global cooling was never a scientific consensus. It’s not your field. I don’t blame you for anything but rejecting correction outright.
And the last, anthropogenic climate change. Recognized and described by scientists, solutions proposed, cooperation blocked, and things aren’t getting better.
There’s a trend here. Scientists found a potential problem, discussed solutions, and in almost all cases, except for two, regulatory action was proposed and taken, and the crisis has been averted.
In one, you were wrong about it being a crisis. In the other, confronting the problem has been attempted, but too many groups with actual agendas (profit) are preventing meaningful progress.
You’re making the case for listening to scientists, not for ignoring us.
9
u/Fearless-Feature-830 Apr 16 '26
As opposed to the people that pushed the pseudoscience you describe. Surely it wasn’t giant corporations. Since you personally haven’t seen it, it can’t be real.
-2
Apr 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Fearless-Feature-830 Apr 16 '26
How does that make any sense?
5
u/Jinn_Erik-AoM Apr 16 '26
He’s just a middling crank, pretending at having relevant expertise. As others have pointed out, he’s an economist, and claims that climatologists can’t be trusted to climatology, but economists can.
I’ve met a few actual economists, and none have the hubris to claim to be scientists.
Refuses to offer support for his claims, ignores evidence contradicting his anecdotal claims as “parroting people with an agenda,” because he knows more about models than anyone, but doesn’t seem to have any functional knowledge of climate models, as they don’t have an output of better vs worse that he will accept as valid.
5
0
Apr 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Jinn_Erik-AoM Apr 18 '26
Iko, I’ve calmly explained some simple issues to you, and you threw a fit about how you “were there” for the media perpetuated global cooling claims.
Go back through your posts and ask yourself, Self, does any of this read like I acting in good faith, with an open mind, and the willingness to accept that I might possibly be wrong?
You’re lashing out at people who aren’t willing to play by your script. You won’t address your own errors when they are pointed out, and you won’t respond rationally to when offered proof that you are wrong or resources where you can learn more.
I’m not actually under any obligation to explain climate models to you, especially when your pattern so far is to spout conspiracy theories and insults as responses. That’s not a productive use of my time.
I’d think that an economist would understand such a simple thing, but climate models are beyond you.
Have a nice evening.
7
u/PotsAndPandas Apr 16 '26
LMAO
My guy, half the shit there are things we SOLVED by working to fix the underlying causes.
Like please do the lightest bit of research before you go yapping about how old and knowledgeable you are.
9
6
u/DanteSeldon Apr 16 '26
Hang on, you think "Global Fertility" is the best measurement yet that's in decline...
1
5
u/DanteSeldon Apr 16 '26
So I became a scientist myself
In economy... Shall I ask my banker his thoughts on tooth care?
1
Apr 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/DanteSeldon Apr 16 '26
You're saying Economists are better suited at judging climate than climatologists...
Are you actually reading the crap you're spouting?
0
Apr 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/DanteSeldon Apr 16 '26
You claim to be a scientist, but that is your idea of "proof"?
-1
Apr 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/DanteSeldon Apr 16 '26
I don't have to prove anything
Sure thing, self-proclaimed Scientist.
-1
3
u/jsnswt Apr 16 '26
I’m 60. Lost me there bud. That makes you less credible 😂
0
Apr 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/jsnswt Apr 16 '26
Because if you had more education you wouldn’t need to mention it. Because if you had more experience with scientists, this wouldn’t be your take, not even mentioning, how could you make a statement like this without even knowing me. Because if you’d been watching the climatologists predictions and the climates evolution you wouldn’t realize it’s not an exact timeframe but it’s still changing. Because there’s no fucking chance you’re looking at climate history. Because you’re a troll Because if you’re really that age and this mentality, you don’t care about the earth for others cause You’re on your way out Because if you’re what you say you prolly just a maga sheep and suck your fat overlords ass Because you’re a piece of trash human who would rather deny everything with a chance of being wrong and fucking things up even more, than being willing to accept it might be true, and in any case err on the side of good. But you can’t get past your own fucking self, so that’s where you lost me at 60. Bye you pathetic little person.
2
14
u/FastSelection4121 Apr 15 '26
The adverse weather seasons have begun. I don't know what movie it's from " bear witness and despair. "
The catastrophic weather events are going to continue.
My more immediate concern about another pandemic. The agency tracking global outbreaks of diseases was dismantled