Here is yet another attempt by the climate alarmists to avoid debate on the data and instead to attack and silence those who dissent from their orthodoxy. Especially pernicious is the call for social media companies to cripple the free speech of climate skeptics. I look forward to the time when this hysterical assault on scientific freedom will be looked back upon with shame. We, the Arbiters of Truth, are Working Really Really Hard to Understand Those Stupid Lying Climate Denier Liars Charles Rotter I don’t have much to say about this ugliness, but I’ll let their writing speak for itself. . . . https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-50591-6 Abstract Using data from Twitter (now X), this study deploys artificial intelligence (AI) and network analysis to map and profile climate change denialism across the United States. We estimate that 14.8% of Americans do not believe in climate change. This denialism is highest in the central and southern U.S. However, it also persists in clusters within states (e.g., California) where belief in climate change is high. Political affiliation has the strongest correlation, followed by level of education, COVID-19 vaccination rates, carbon intensity of the regional economy, and income. The analysis reveals how a coordinated social media network uses periodic events, such as cold weather and climate conferences, to sow disbelief about climate change and science, in general. Donald Trump was the strongest influencer in this network, followed by conservative media outlets and right-wing activists. As a form of knowledge vulnerability, climate denialism renders communities unprepared to take steps to increase resilience. As with other forms of misinformation, social media companies (e.g., X, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok) should flag accounts that spread falsehoods about climate change and collaborate on targeted educational campaigns. . . .
There is no end to alarmists' bloviating at the expense of free speech and science. How to Convince those Dumb Deniers Part Eleventy Fifty-Seven Charles Rotter Their conclusion seems to be that if you ask people to do things, they resist more conspicuously than if you tell people in passive voice that things must be done. . . . https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2023.2296844?src= This study posits the hypothesis that the lack of an individual’s engagement in mitigating climate change might be due to reactance, a motivational psychological state that occurs when one’s perceived freedom to think or act is being threatened. In a 2 × 2 between-subjects experimental design (N = 623), we varied how mitigation recommendations for transportation were communicated (individual vs. policy appeal) in an online article. Additionally, we manipulated how directly the need to act was stressed (high- vs. low-controlling language). Outcome measures to capture reactance were perceived threat to freedom, counterarguing, and support for recommended mitigation efforts. Participants in the individual condition reported higher perceived threat to freedom, counterarguing, and showed lower support for the recommendations compared to those in the policy condition. In addition, high-controlling language increased perceptions of freedom threat. Results help clarify public responses to climate change mitigation appeals and offer insights about people’s perspectives on climate change mitigation. . . .
True - WUWT aggregates every blogger they can find that doesn't accept the broad consensus of climatologists throughout the world. That's a fine life's work, I suppose. But, I can certainly see other ways to spend time.
WUWT also presents work by consensus climatologists. That fairness is what distinguishes WUWT from alarmist sites like RealClimate, who never, ever present skeptics' work.
You're evading. The definition is in the paper. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-50591-6/figures/1 The full study can be found here.
OK, so it refers to disbelief in climate change, promoted along with disbelief in science in general. It equates the promotion of denialism in social media as a "knowledge vulnerability", and suggests that social media platforms need to collaborate on education campaigns aimed at ensuring people are truthfully informed concerning climate change. I'm good with that definition.
Ah. So you think attacks on people and suppression of dissent are appropriate alternatives to free inquiry and exploration of the science?
I wasn't I who cited that piece. And, it wasn't I who suggested using the definitions they chose to use.
Many of which have more degrees than a thermometer, their research just leads in a different direction. Actual science bothers you?
That comes from the first page of the study you cited. I'm fine with dissent, but it needs to be oriented to the truth. The problem with attacks on people is that it really never works.
No, I'm not evading. I just don't credit blog, especially when the posted blogs have been selected by a highly politically motivated site such as WUWT. Why would I consider THAT as "science"? Blogs don't get reviewed or responded to by scientists, thus they are inevitably one person's opinion with no easy way to verify - unless the reader is actually an expert in the field being blogged about. There are plenty of sources of science that actually get reviewed by numerous known 3scientists from around the world. Scientists don't agree on all the causes and impacts of climate change. Reading a blog about one person's view just doesn't work.
These blogs always present a distorted message of the paper, and in some cases fabricate the contents/get it wrong. They appear to be either hacks, science community dropouts or oil industry shills.
And that is exactly how the climate change fanatics get around having to answer genuine questions about their supposed "science". Must be oil industry shills! All the proper scientists (as defined by us) agree with me! Oh yeah! Write that up and submit it to the IPCC and see if you can get peer reviewed and published! And don't forget to format your paper properly! That's what proper science demands!
Huh? You obviously know nothing about being a scientist. Read my post again. I wasn't criticising the papers.
