Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
environment

Climate scientists flee Twitter as hostility surges

23 Comments
By Roland LLOYD PARRY

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2023 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


23 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

The MSM will be harping on Musk for the near future, still, he’s a modern day Einstein and hero for humanity.

invalid CSRF

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Lol. In the real world, "The past eight years were the warmest on record globally, ..." (https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/past-eight-years-confirmed-be-eight-warmest-record#:~:text=2022%20is%20the%208th,eight%20warmest%20years%20on%20record.).

Pure misinformation.

According to NOAA's own data;

The earth is cooling in the last 8 years at a rate of 0.11 degrees C/decade despite 450+ billion tons of emissions worth 14% of total manmade CO2 in the atmosphere.

Earth is cooling when the climate hysterics insist it should be warming.

CO2 warming is a hoax.

The west is in a desperate battle between those whose hysteria will kill billions in short order, and those who want to raise those same billions out of poverty.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The dumbest people are usually the loudest. Too busy hurling insults to educate themselves.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

"They" don't like the Hate Speech, alternate opinions, and problems on ANY Social Media site when "they" are on the receiving end and roles reversed. Good move by Elon to take over Twitter.

If they really believe in what they are espousing they shouldn't have been deterred that easily.

Should have been the least of their concerns because if what they believe is true then the climate apocalypse is fast coming.

What they need to do is precisely to confront and convince those criticizing them, not run away to some place where everyone is saying the same thing

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Exactly, some need to remain in their echo chamber that doesn't question their "evidence".

Questioning the evidence is routine for scientists, what has no place in any valid discussion is to endlessly repeat falsehoods and misrepresentations trying to manipulate people to reject valid conclusions for the benefit of very few.

They" don't like the Hate Speech, alternate opinions, and problems on ANY Social Media site when "they" are on the receiving end and roles reversed. 

Alternative opinions are not the problem, things that can be easily demonstrated as false and threats are. Allowing things that bring zero benefit to the discussion without any penalty only cheapens the medium.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

"They" don't like the Hate Speech, alternate opinions, and problems on ANY Social Media site when "they" are on the receiving end and roles reversed. Good move by Elon to take over Twitter.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

"Climate 'scientists' flee Twitter as their hysteria and misinformation is called out"

Exactly, some need to remain in their echo chamber that doesn't question their "evidence".

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Policies aimed at curbing the deadly effects of climate change are accelerating,

Policies like what?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Agreed, and excellent point. Even one of the "scientists" in the article seems to make such claim without any validation.

Refuted by the same article when they clearly explain what how the bots can be identified, if your argument completley depends on ignoring the part of the text that debunks it that means you don't have an argument in the first place.

ALT headline;

Calling valid data and conclusions hysteria without even trying to argue against them first only make evident a personal antiscientific bias.

According to NOAA's own data;

Any reference for this? Because the experts completely contradict you in ther official communications:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

According to NOAA's 2021 Annual Climate Report the combined land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.14 degrees Fahrenheit ( 0.08 degrees Celsius) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase since 1981 has been more than twice as fast: 0.32 °F (0.18 °C) per decade.

If the scientific community of the whole world coincides in something and can show the data to prove it while nameless people on the internet claim the scientists are all wrong based on nothing it is quite clear who is the one being wrong here.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Global temp increase of +1.5 degrees C projected to be reached on or before 2027.

> I guess we'll find out what happens then/after.

> But they should be sounding the alarm loudly even before now.

> Pure misinformation

You should be glad then that it's coming soon so we'll know for sure. 2027 is just right around the corner

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The west is in a desperate battle between those whose hysteria will kill billions in short order, and those who want to raise those same billions out of poverty.

Who is raising billions out of poverty? Nobody except their own citizens and anybody can do that.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The earth is cooling in the last 8 years at a rate of 0.11 degrees C/decade despite 450+ billion tons of emissions worth 14% of total manmade CO2 in the atmosphere.

Anyway could you please post the source link? Not doubting what you posted im just curious with the odd (to me) presentation, (degrees C/decade) of change for a period spanning only 8years

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The west is in a desperate battle between those whose hysteria will kill billions in short order, and those who want to raise those same billions out of poverty.

Wow that's like a battle between good and evil

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Global temp increase of +1.5 degrees C projected to be reached on or before 2027.

I guess we'll find out what happens then/after.

But they should be sounding the alarm loudly even before now.

Pure misinformation.

According to NOAA's own data;

The earth is cooling in the last 8 years at a rate of 0.11 degrees C/decade despite 450+ billion tons of emissions worth 14% of total manmade CO2 in the atmosphere.

Earth is cooling when the climate hysterics insist it should be warming.

CO2 warming is a hoax.

The west is in a desperate battle between those whose hysteria will kill billions in short order, and those who want to raise those same billions out of poverty.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

Maybe all the scientists of the world should renew their commitment to the consensus and get together once again to show everyone that the world is in grave danger.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Also seems no country is serious with their Paris commitments

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Global temp increase of +1.5 degrees C projected to be reached on or before 2027.

I guess we'll find out what happens then/after.

But they should be sounding the alarm loudly even before now.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

ALT headline;

"Climate 'scientists' flee Twitter as their hysteria and misinformation is called out"

Good riddance.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

It's an unwise mistake to assume that the pushback is coming from a secret army of trolls paid for by BigFossil.

Agreed, and excellent point. Even one of the "scientists" in the article seems to make such claim without any validation.

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

It's an unwise mistake to assume that the pushback is coming from a secret army of trolls paid for by BigFossil.

But that is not what is being described in the article, which is more about invalid forms of pushback coming from different sourced including troll accounts according to the results of tools made specifically to identify those accounts.

What people might view favourably as a vague concept

The problem is when there is a clear objective negative development not favorable for anyone except the obscenely rich, at that point people are either being aware or not of what is beneficial for them. Opting for a temporary small benefit even at the cost of a huge permanent detrimental situation is irrational enough to be avoided, complicating that with hostility against the professionals that warn about this irrationality makes ti even worse.

The overwhelming focus on climate change and the toxic way dissent by non-government scientists was attacked in the pandemic may be damaging public perceptions of science in general. 

The attacks were not for non-goverment scientists, they were against people repeatedly found to push false or misleading information not supported by the evidence or even contradicted by the available evidence. Which is part of what science is supposed to do, fight against falsehoods, that people with a personal interest are manipulating the people into believing anybody with a different opinion was attacked (which has not been the case) is what needs to be solved.

If people are being manipulated to act irrationally, pandering to that irrationality is a "solution" terribly inefficient, because it ends up promoting the same thing to keep happening.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

And the more the denialism is overcome by real events in the real world, the more the denialists have to shout their denial to try to make it true. And policing dissent from an unsubstantiated ideology is vital to maintain it. That's how it works. On the other hand, there are few realists threatening to kill and maim the denialists. Wonder why that is.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

It's an unwise mistake to assume that the pushback is coming from a secret army of trolls paid for by BigFossil.

Protest tactics are doing a lot to generate pushback. Blocking roads and intervening in sports and cultural events are going down really badly with ordinary people.

What people might view favourably as a vague concept, they soon turn against when it impacts upon them - high energy prices, power cuts, water rationing, holiday flight bans and ordinary goods becoming scarce. Excessive and pointless biosecurity/trade barriers restricting the availability of plants, seeds and even food. Low emission zones are going to be very unpopular when people discover the consequences of them - intended and unintended. Labour's ULEZ may be one of the few things that damages their electoral chances when it kicks in. In some places in the UK, Greens have got into power on a wave of people wanting a better world, failed badly at basic politics and been voted out.

There is also crisis fatigue. The belief that continuously burying people in negativity and fear will scare them into action doesn't seem to be working. People are just not seeing or hearing it any more, like ads on the net, and mentally changing channels to protect their mental health.

The overwhelming focus on climate change and the toxic way dissent by non-government scientists was attacked in the pandemic may be damaging public perceptions of science in general. We don't hear much positive news about scientific breakthroughs in other fields, and some news is blocked or sidelined on political grounds.

Academic science has always accepted dissent and doesn't do national borders. Brexit cutting the UK off from EU research programmes and Chinese students being blocked from working abroad are examples of toxic nationalism degrading the status of science in general.

Finally, climate change action is promoted by (well paid) scientists and young activists, often students (funded by the bank of mum and dad). Most people are not well paid and have financial responsibilities, ones that are tougher in the current fiscal climate. Being lectured to by kids and told that everything you do is wrong and that you are destroying humanity, when you have just had a long day at work, doesn't go down well. Elderly people do not appreciate young people telling them to walk or cycle to the shops, when they patently cannot. Both activists and scientists really need to spend more time out of their bubbles. If they want to get their message across, they need to understand the priorities and situations of their audience a good deal more.

-4 ( +8 / -12 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites