tech

Twitter bans ads that deny climate change

37 Comments

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

© 2022 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

37 Comments

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

and millions will continue to ban Twitter from their lives.

8 ( +17 / -9 )

and millions will continue to ban Twitter from their lives

for completely unrelated reasons. I've been tired of the junk on social networks since they first started.

What I'd like to know is when will Twitter turn over all the profits to the opposing causes for which the lying advertising was paid? After all, ill-gotten gains shouldn't be used except to fund the opposite team(s).

1 ( +4 / -3 )

the climate has been changing since the earth was created. It will continue to change

0 ( +12 / -12 )

The issue is who can make the judgement if the information is "misleading" or not. It is the reason why Europe and other countries are concerning that the information channel are monopolized by such giant company.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

This article has so many assumptions and paraphrases of things that are not as they were said or happens that it doesn’t make sense as news.

biased hit job by worried liberal.

-1 ( +11 / -12 )

contradict the scientific consensus

Contracting scientific consensus is how science produces progress in our understanding.

Banning people from saying other things is like punishing those who claimed the world is not flat.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

100% agree with above post.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

"Misleading advertisements on Twitter that contradict the scientific consensus on climate change are prohibited, in line with our inappropriate content policy,"

When considering the "the scientific consensus on climate change", it's important to remember Climategate, which documented data manipulation and journals controlling the narrative by refusing papers that disagreed with the so-called "consensus" and their expelling editors that accepted such papers. This is another example of captured institutions/agencies/media...

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

The woke mob at twitter are gonna be in for a surprise when Elon takes over.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

But there is no scientific consensus.

Voting the "truth" is politics,not science.

Science requires only one investigator with verifiable results.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Anyway would be really hard to decline a good offer, shareholders are investors , why would they decline a very good offer?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The woke mob at twitter are gonna be in for a surprise when Elon takes over.

actually no they wont, there is already another buyer interested in Twitter and theyre offering a fa r higher offer, seems like Elon wont be getting it without a battle and it make you wonder if what he pays for it will even make a return on his investment,Elon doent give a shite about free speech just profits. does Elon really think his 48billion offer will be his best offer lol

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Contracting scientific consensus is how science produces progress in our understanding.

That is not correct, contradicting scientific consensus with evidence is what make our understanding progress, contradicting it with empty declarations or debunked theories not supported by valid evidence do not bring any progress at all.

If information can be corroborated as false it should be ignored, including it in any discussion would be counterproductive.

When considering the "the scientific consensus on climate change", it's important to remember Climategate, which documented data manipulation and journals controlling the narrative by refusing papers that disagreed with the so-called "consensus" and their expelling editors that accepted such papers. This is another example of captured institutions/agencies/media...

What is to remember about it? climate change denialist made a lot of accusations that were debunked by valid investigations that have not been refuted. Trying to misrepresent this as anything else than a campaign to exaggerate and misrepresent the scientific discussion is just disinformation.

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[17] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#cite_note-6committees-17

But there is no scientific consensus.

There is, if all institutions of the related fields hold the same conclusions based on the data that is what it is called, you may be confusing "consensus" with "immutable dogma" but in reality it only means what the scientific community in general holds as valid according to the current best available data. There is no "voting the truth" just recognizing that everybody reached the same conclusions.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

There is no "voting the truth" just recognizing that everybody reached the same conclusions.

So with regards to climate change what exactly is this conclusion?

What was the basis?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

actually no they wont, there is already another buyer interested in Twitter and theyre offering a fa r higher offer, 

Interesting.

Good for shareholders

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Went for a quick look, first hit was a 12 minute old article titled "Twitter in Talks to Strike a Deal With Elon Musk"

Haven't read yet

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Of course climate change is real. It's been going on for hundreds of millions of years.

It's hard to buy into the "climate crisis" claims when the climate debate has lasted for multiple decades, and we've yet to see the effects the Left promises will happen.

Dozens of doom-and-gloom climate predictions have been made since the early 1970s.

Not a single one of them, no exceptions, has come true.

We have environmental problems, no doubt. We always have. But a "crisis"? Bollocks.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

So with regards to climate change what exactly is this conclusion?

What was the basis?

That the climate is changing and the human industrial activity is one of the mayors contributors to it because of the production of greenhouse gases.

This comes from the examination of literally thousands of studies about it produced all over the world, people make studies to analyze how many of the studies have reached that conclusions, or even make studies about those secondary studies to confirm the consensus of the scientific community.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002?platform=hootsuite

In general you will not find any recognized institution of science that disagrees with these conclusions, it is no longer a discussed matter but for all practical purposes is a reached conclusion.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

That the climate is changing and the human industrial activity is one of the mayors contributors to it because of the production of greenhouse gases.

Shouldn't that be the primary contributor or cause?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

This comes from the examination of literally thousands of studies about it produced all over the world, people make studies to analyze how many of the studies have reached that conclusions

Majority of those studies have no clear positions

7 ( +7 / -0 )

As I mentioned above only one study is needed with conclusive and verifiable results

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Not the thousand you mentioned that do not disagree with a stated "consensus"

5 ( +5 / -0 )

This comes from the examination of literally thousands of studies about it produced all over the world, people make studies to analyze how many of the studies have reached that conclusions, 

Have you read any of these thousands that reached that conclusions?

I would be interested in reading that also

5 ( +5 / -0 )

It's about time we quit lying and denying about it. Notice that one big denier, Spankee Don has been permanently blocked. Of course he should've long ago for other lies and offenses.

It's time to face the truth.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Shouldn't that be the primary contributor or cause?

Depending on the studies done that is also how is the contribution characterized, it depends on how much data is collected.

Majority of those studies have no clear positions

The studies in the reference are about the consensus of the field, their conclusions are completely clear and show overwhelming agreement of the experts about the existence of climate change, its importance and the role human activity has on it. Table 1 and the percentages of agreement show a very clear position about the issue. More interesting is figure 1 where the agreement increases with the degree of expertise of the people being asked about their professional opinion.

As I mentioned above only one study is needed with conclusive and verifiable results

Not the thousand you mentioned that do not disagree with a stated "consensus"

And the references (and references from those references) include literally thousands of those studies, this reference is specifically about the opinion of the scientific community, do you honestly believe close to 100% of the experts on the field share this opinion without any scientific basis? Their job is precisely to evaluate scientific evidence.

The NY times page have also lots of links to primary sources that are clear and with verifiable results (for anybody that has both the interest and capacity to do it).

Have you read any of these thousands that reached that conclusions?

I would be interested in reading that also

Yes, several of the the most representative of the primary studies but mostly the secondary ones when they compilate groups of them to reach more general conclusions. The one article linked is a very good introduction and then go to the references, that fortunately are only 3 dozens instead of directly thousands of articles, they make a very strong point about the opinion in the field and each of them have of course references to further examine how they reached these conclusions.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

, they make a very strong point about the opinion in the field and each of them have of course references to further examine how they reached these conclusions.

Very strong point about the opinion in the field.

Even if true, you can't and shouldn't sell that as science or "settled science"

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Even if true, you can't and shouldn't sell that as science or "settled science"

Again, I gave you two sources, the scientific paper is about the scientific consensus, which is meant to refute your claim that there is no such thing in the field. It is demonstrated scientifically that there is.

The other source is an easy to read article with links to the direct scientific resources that prove above any reasonable doubt the conclusions that the scientific community is sharing.

The science is settled because of the evidence, and there is a consensus also proved with evidence. Thinking that all the scientists of the field, that know more about it than anybody else, are wrong just because you think differently is as valid as thinking the brain is after all an organ that just helps cooling down the blood, it is just that all the doctors that say it has a different function based on mountains of evidence may be wrong.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

I've read the methodology of at least one of those survey studies.

Doesn't look at the conclusions of the studies surveyed to arrive at a conclusion, which would be a consensus if turns out to be common.

What the study did was to look for the subject/s covered by the studies and based on that assign an endorsement level that's a measuren of how well it's supposed to , well , endorse the "consensus statement".

There is already a "consensus statement" , they are just doing the study survey to find out if the studies surveyed agree, or rather, don't disagree with said "consensus statement"

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Seems approach of the other studies are the same

4 ( +4 / -0 )

You said yourself they are just opinions

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Anyway if they really nailed the science them they should be able to make reasonable accurate projections about what will happen so will be useful at least with mitigation

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Twitter has banned ads that deny the reality of climate change.

Even this sentence of the article is biased, as it rejects something without showing proof of it.

"We believe that climate denialism shouldn’t be monetized on Twitter, and that misrepresentative ads shouldn’t detract from important conversations about the climate crisis."

Wha country is this?

virusrexToday  01:41 pm JST

The studies in the reference are about the consensus of the field, their conclusions are completely clear and show overwhelming agreement of the experts about the existence of climate change,

The "reference" follows the same fallacious patter as the first sentence of the article because the "results" in the "studies" are just a consensus of what the lead author has already written in another "paper".

In other words, he is trying to give evidence that what he wrote in a previous paper is validated becasue he is writing the current paper that says what he wrote in the other paper is true.

It's true because I say it is, and by my saying it again, further proves it so.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Good for Twitter.

I think the world would be a better place without any of these SNS companies, but applaud the brave ones that take some accountability for fighting misinformation.

To claim freedom of speech means allowing people to spread misinformation is lazy and primarily supported by people lost in conspiracy theories.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Kind a hard to deny climate change when change is the climate’s natural state. Manhattan used to sit under nearly a mile of ice, see levels have varied by 100 meters higher and lower than today. CO2 levels have ranged from 90 ppm to 7000 ppm, more than 90% of life on earth went extinct before our first ancestors scribbled figurers on cave walls. But I suppose they mean “anthropogenic” climate change, which is also undeniable. But I can’t help but take exception to the amount attributed to human activity, not because it hasn’t been disproven, but that the methods of “proof” make a mockery of the entire process. When we are told that 2012 was the “point of no return, that “the north pole will be ice-free by 2013,” or that Polar Bears will be extinct in 20 years, only to find that the Polar Bear population has grown so large that their range is extending into places where they haven’t been seen in a century. Not a single one of the temperature increases predicted by climate models for the past nearly 30 years have been proven by observation, and the amount of actual warming remains within the “limits of natural variability.” The temperature record keeps being tampered with, previous hot weather and cooling trends are erased, and replaced with gradual warming. The entire climate change movement continually shoots itself in the foot by letting politics and fanaticism overshadow or even obliterate climate science.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Doesn't look at the conclusions of the studies surveyed to arrive at a conclusion, which would be a consensus if turns out to be common.

Again table 1, if 100% of the respondents to a survey agree on a conclusion, how is this not a consensus? of course when the authors of the survey conclude this, it means they offer evidence of such consensus.

Also, reading the methodology can't give you any idea about what the conclusions are, is like reading the process of taking a blood test, it can tell you if it is done adequately but not what the results will be.

If you stop at the tertiary level (a study about the level of consensus observed from studies that examine the consensus of the experts that form their opinions based on primary data) you will only get tertiary conclusions (that a consensus can be proved). The article on the NY times is the one linking to the evidence that originate this consensus.

Seems approach of the other studies are the same

Yes, that is the point of a tertiary study that examine how secondary studies about the consensus, if you want different studies there are links at the NY times links.

You said yourself they are just opinions

Based on objective validated data, for which they also carry an special weight. In the same way a diagnosis of diabetes is also "just an opinion" based on a series of tests that indicate this.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

The "reference" follows the same fallacious patter as the first sentence of the article because the "results" in the "studies" are just a consensus of what the lead author has already written in another "paper".

That is mistaken, the reference shows articles that investigate if there is a consensus or not according to the studies looking for a consensus, and each of the secondary studies ask the question directly to the professionals. Each of the secondary reports and the tertiary report make a valid conclusion about what the evidence they found, which is that there is a clear consensus.

In other words, he is trying to give evidence that what he wrote in a previous paper is validated becasue he is writing the current paper that says what he wrote in the other paper is true.

No, it is not, each reference is a study on its own about the level of consensus, the tertiary report is about a compilation of such studies, in other words, studies that see if there is a consensus are by themselves in consensus with each other.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites