https://phys.org/news/2019-08-pseudoscience-social-media.html
"...Search for "climate change" on YouTube and before long you'll likely find a video that denies it exists. In fact, when it comes to shaping the online conversation around climate change, a new study suggests that deniers and conspiracy theorists might hold an edge over those believing in science. Researchers found evidence that most YouTube videos relating to climate change oppose the scientific consensus that it's primarily caused by human activities.
The study highlights the key role of social media use in the spread of scientific misinformation. ..."
This sounds all too familiar.
But it goes on to say;
".. And it suggests scientists and those who support them need to be more active in developing creative and compelling ways to communicate their findings.
..."
The problem I have with this above suggestion is that I don't see how it is possible for scientists to make "creative and compelling ways to communicate their findings" to convince the stupid without lowering themselves into communicate their findings by dumbing down the explinations to the point where they would be unscientific. If a layperson is so stupid as not to trust the findings of the scientists and only believe whatever they want to be true then it would probably be futile to try to convince him he is wrong and science is right.
@humysaid https://phys.org/news/2019-08-pseudoscience-social-media.html
"...Search for "climate change" on YouTube and before long you'll likely find a video that denies it exists. In fact, when it comes to shaping the online conversation around climate change, a new study suggests that deniers and conspiracy theorists might hold an edge over those believing in science. Researchers found ...[text shortened]... to be true then it would probably be futile to try to convince him he is wrong and science is right.
"Search for "climate change" on YouTube and before long you'll likely find a video that denies it exists"
Nobody denies climate change, especially not skeptics. We are quite confident there was an ice age. Rocks in MI are rounded by glaciers.
There is no scientific consensus that it's primarily caused by human activities. That is mostly a claim from those that read literature from climate scientists and came to a biased conclusion. Many climate scientists objected to having their articles misinterpreted.
As for polls, only a minority of climate scientists think that, not a majority and that is a fact. You are repeating lies again.
@wildgrasssaid We already did this. Your statements here are inaccurate. More than a minority have been contacted. In the other thread, you claimed that all climate scientists needed to weigh in for a consensus to be acceptable, which is unrealistic.
With this issue, of course there are nuanced opinions and of course there are people that disagree (like your guy who says CO2 coo ...[text shortened]... he role of humans in climate and mitigation methods. Or..... accept the science and act accordingly.
You are lying again. I NEVER said "all" climate scientists needed to weigh in for a consensus to be acceptable. That would be preferable, but I said "most".
"More than a minority have been contacted."
Your statement is inaccurate, not mine. There is no evidence more than a minority have been contacted. The best poll you have ever posted never contacted all climate scientists or even tried. They don't even know how many climate scientists there are, let alone what percentage they contacted. Furthermore, they did it in the dumbest way possible unless the goal is to rig the outcome. They sent e-mails that likely went to spam folders in high volumes and were never seen, let alone read. The 29% reply rate is even false. We went over this before.
I will ask you again, do you support a poll of a majority of climate scientists to get a result that is less disputable?
@kellyjaysaid More than a minority, what is that 3 instead of 2? At least be specific if you are going to make claims about a poll, who and how were the people contacted? How many from what disciplines were chosen? If you are going to suggest a critical view is inaccurate give the positive details to show your right, you saying your right just because is unrealistic.
Read my reply to wildgrass. The best poll he could point to was very flawed. This is much like the Bush v Gore election dispute. Bush wanted to stop the count because he feared the result of a better count. Wildgrass fears a better poll because he fears the result. Alarmists are not confident at all of their claim of consensus. Confident people would say bring it on, all the polls you want because we are not afraid of the truth.
@wildgrasssaid Yeah sorry. Unfortunate that I can't search for the content of the (long) prior thread. We looked at several independent studies that polled scientists with diverse backgrounds and asked them a series of questions about climate change. Both polls had similar results, and even if you took the non-responders and assumed they were skeptics there'd still be a majority that favo ...[text shortened]... of global warming is man made.
It's not 98% as some media outlets have suggested, but it is ~65%.
"even if you took the non-responders and assumed they were skeptics there'd still be a majority that favored the conclusion that >50% of global warming is man made"
You all failed to use sea level rise to prove antropogenic cause of greater than 50%
Everyone has an opportunity to prove it using sea level rise on this link I created. The fact is they all digressed away from it like cowards. I even provided them with NASA's long term graph (a known alarmist biased website) to make their point. I didn't even require they correct with the faulty data it contains. There was no need. They couldn't even do it with the corrupted data! Didn't even have to go there.
"...The record-shattering heatwave that baked much of northern Europe last month was likely between 1.5 to 3.0 degrees Celsius hotter due to manmade climate change, an international team of scientists said Friday.
...
"In all locations an event like the observed would have been 1.5 to 3C cooler in an unchanged climate," the WWA said, adding that the difference was "consistent with increased instances of morbidity and mortality."
...
Such temperature extremes in northern Europe, without the additional 1C centigrade humans have added to the atmosphere since the industrial era, would be expected on average once every 1,000 years.
...
"We know without doubt that climate change will bring increasingly severe heatwaves, but also heavier downpours and more flooding,"
...
The June heatwave itself was likely made at least five times more likely by climate change, and was around 4C hotter than an equivalent heatwave a century ago.
...
Europe has experienced exceptionally intense heatwaves in 2003, 2010, 2015, 2017, 2018 and two this year, peaks consistent with the general warming trend: the four hottest years on record globally were the last four years.
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) on Friday said that preliminary data showed July may have been the hottest month ever recorded.
...
the WMO said the figures were "particularly significant" as July 2016 occurred during a strong El Nino warming event, absent in 2019.
..."
"...The record-shattering heatwave that baked much of northern Europe last month was likely between 1.5 to 3.0 degrees Celsius hotter due to manmade climate change, an international team of scientists said Friday.
...
"In all locations an event like the observed would have been 1.5 to 3C cooler in an unchanged c ...[text shortened]... arly significant" as July 2016 occurred during a strong El Nino warming event, absent in 2019.
..."
That is because global warming is real. It is mostly from natural causes, but we are in a warming trend that started after the little ice age and is continuing. That means record temps will keep happening, but it has little to do with anthropogenic causes. It is mostly a continuation of the natural warming trend.
@sonhousesaid @KellyJay What we are trying to get at here is what is your hidden motive for objecting to clear evidence by many climate scientists humans are causing a large portion of climate change.
Hidden meaning something you don't want to talk about that causes you to have this fringe view.
You live in a fantasy world, its always agendas, it is never just about the truth.
@humysaid https://phys.org/news/2019-08-pseudoscience-social-media.html
"...Search for "climate change" on YouTube and before long you'll likely find a video that denies it exists. In fact, when it comes to shaping the online conversation around climate change, a new study suggests that deniers and conspiracy theorists might hold an edge over those believing in science. Researchers found ...[text shortened]... to be true then it would probably be futile to try to convince him he is wrong and science is right.
Nothing arrogant about this, "to convince the stupid..."
@kellyjaysaid Nothing arrogant about this, "to convince the stupid..."
How else would you call it? Convincing the deliberate obstructionist? Finding out which politician they are supporting? Finding out what company gives them money to tout those views?
But there still is the possibility they are just stupid, By that meaning they don't do their own thinking, just rely on some assswipe spouting BS.
Let's nuke climate change!
02 Aug '19 14:281 edit
Back to Top