Meteorologists targeted in climate misinfo surge:
Once trusted faces on the news, meteorologists now brave threats, insults and slander online from conspiracy theorists and climate change deniers who accuse them of faking or even fixing the weather.
Users on Twitter and other social media falsely accused Spain's weather agency of engineering a drought, Australia's of doctoring its thermometers and France's of exaggerating global warming through misplaced weather stations.
"The coronavirus is no longer a trend. Conspiracy theorists and deniers who used to talk about that are now spreading disinformation about climate change," Alexandre Lopez-Borrull, lecturer in Information and Communication Sciences at the Open University of Catalonia, told AFP.
[...] "In this context people feel alienated and end up listening to people they never listened to before, with messages appealing directly to the emotions."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by MIRV888 on Tuesday May 16, @03:28AM (23 children)
When the internet came along, I never imagined it would allow people with extremely fringe ideas about science to congregate. Worse yet, gather and preach these falsehoods successfully. But here we are. I just fallback to education. A better educated population (science, math, history) would negate a lot of this BS science. Every part of our modern world relies on knowledge gained through science. It works everywhere else, but with climate change and vaccinations it is somehow false and malevolent. I just don't get it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by driverless on Tuesday May 16, @06:09AM (2 children)
Although it's small consolation to people being victimised by this, one response is to point out to the nutters that reality is that which refuses to go away even if you've stopped believing in it.
Unfortunately by the time the reality sinks in for them it may be too late to do anything about it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16, @08:58AM
There might be a bit of both sides tho. Not to defend the nutters but sometimes they have a point, usually just not the one they think they have.
There are people in science that have strong social media, and old media, presence these days, where they usually share aspects of their science or act as experts or talk about their latest projects and results, usually the version for non-academia. So they are sort of inviting them to communicate. It's just not the communication anyone wants.
Another aspect is that while the science might be right, it doesn't mean the public or fringe nutters likes to hear it. I find that this appears to be very common in things to have to do with certain topics such as the environment, how much we must save or use less of things to somehow survive into the future. If you have little and they ask you to sacrifice more then that isn't going to be popular, if you need your car to get places etc you don't want to hear that you should pay more for gas etc. It doesn't necessarily mean they don't believe the science, it's the proposed solution they don't agree with. It doesn't matter even if it is the only solution. Nobody wants to have it worse now for some pipedream or potential future.
There are also things that have later been shown to be false or less correct that fuel them and their theories, usually reports containing a large amount of probabilities. A lot of modelling falls into this problem. As worst-case scenarios where everything is pulled to 11 are presented as highly probable or THE one and only truth and are a sure thing that will happen if we don't do things yesterday. If they had all come true I would have posted this while sitting in my underwater lair as the sea level was supposed to have raised several meters by now. Yet it didn't. Science that gets it wrong, even if it's just the probabilities that are wrong fuel their weird and wacky theories.
It probably doesn't help either that there are scientists with agendas that gets mixed into the bunch. They clearly have an agenda to push and science to match what their message is. My impression in that some fields of science these agenda-driven scientists are becoming more and more common.
Pointing out the nutters? It's not really a solution. First they don't care if you would name and shame them, they would probably just see that as validation of their theories as you are trying to ridicule them or trying to cover up the truth. So while amusing perhaps it wouldn't accomplish anything. Secondly they want you to respond so they can get their message, aka their truth, out to more people. Why help them with that? While probably futile it's containment of stupidity to not respond to them.
Having worked on several projects that have had published reports I can tell you there is a certain uptick of email with their theories and what we did wrong or how we are hiding the truth or how we are part of the lizard-people-cabal-keeping-the-humans-down etc after they are reported on. You can't really respond to them, at this point you don't even read them anymore. They just get sorted into the nutter-folder, they are saved if they somehow later would go crazy and try to take things beyond the emails.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17, @11:10AM
The predictions by scientists show the sea levels won't rise by that much to affect me. As for more bad weather - just look at history there's been plenty of bad weather. Heck there was a Year Without Summer. There have been big floods.
If you're getting big multi-decade loans to buy property close to the "normal case scenario" high tide mark, your main problem is something else and not climate change.
Also a lot of the floods nowadays are worse because of over development and poor development. If a city grows in size and you don't enforce a requirement to store/slowdown rainwater and runoff (water detention/retention basins, roof rainwater collection etc) no surprise the floods will be bigger and happen more often than the times when the city was smaller. If a lot of the rainfall gets stored and slowed the floods will be fewer and smaller.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Opportunist on Tuesday May 16, @07:28AM (2 children)
It's easier to appeal to emotion than to logic. There are simply more people who rely on the former than the latter.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Tuesday May 16, @02:23PM (1 child)
It is always the same people who believe the crazy stuff. Consistently.
It is the same people who tend to believe:
You can't argue with them. Some of them will insist that they were alive when we landed on the moon and saw it live on TV. They don't even believe in chemtrails, ghosts, homeopathy, palm-reading, numerology, psychokinesis, perpetual motion, acupuncture, spontaneous human combustion, dianetics, fortune telling, dowsing, crystal healing, or the science of astrology.
I see stupid people.
Walking around like regular people.
They only see what they wanna see.
They don't know they're stupid.
How often do you see them?
All the time.
They're everywhere!
Now excuse me while I go try installing every single package in Ubuntu.
How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Tuesday May 16, @09:44PM
The horror! I'm reminded of a story I heard decades ago from someone who attended the annual mineralogy show in Tuscon, Arizona. They came to a booth where the guy was selling crystals, bragging that their healing properties carefully preserved because they had never been exposed to daylight. His booth was right under an open window.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Tuesday May 16, @11:23AM (3 children)
Two winters ago I was hiking, along with a buddy, in a corner of the Hainaut province (hilly, forested, wild boar, deer, hunting) in my country. At one point, we ended up in a small town built around a castle on the top of the hill.
To get to the castle, we had to cross a small square. There was a plaque in that square, informing that this had been the place where witches were burnt at the stake. Information panels detailed who had been those so-called witches: in large majority widowed women with property. The last information panels were the most interesting though.
There had been 2 periods of witches' persecution, both in the 1500s, with a space of 20-30 years in between. (I believe the first one started around 1530-something.) Before that time, people didn't even know what witches were: there were no local legends nor folk stories where their existence was even mentioned.
Then came the printing press, and an influx of cheap, mass produced, books which popularized tall stories of witches and their evils. From there, it was only a small step to believing those tales, and mass hysteria.
(Score: -1, Troll) by VLM on Tuesday May 16, @12:10PM
The irony of this story, is both sides really ARE correct when they claim the other side is weaponizing climate change.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday May 16, @06:47PM (1 child)
What I think funny is that real "witches" were actually members of a Pagan religion called "Wicca." I doubt any of the women hanged and burned were actually Wiccans.
But it was a very long time after Gutenberg that books were cheap enough for the proles to afford, so I don't think you can blame printing.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 16, @09:46PM
(Score: 2) by OrugTor on Tuesday May 16, @05:08PM (6 children)
I believe conspiracy theorists are mentally ill. In the medical sense. This is not my preferred opinion; the alternative explanation, that they are merely dull-witted fools who fall for antiestablishment propaganda, leaves room for treating them as criminals. Throwing them in jail would be moderately effective in silencing them although in the US there's little chance of passing the required draconian laws. Conspiracy theorism would have to be seen as a sin against the Judeo-Christian god for that to happen. BTW such laws could be viewed as borderline justifiable by legislatures given the harm that anti-vaxxers caused.
So if we go with the mental illness theory we're left with the US healthcare system which delivers horrible outcome/cost and particularly so for behavioral health. It seems that one of the fundamental rights in this country is the right to insanity. Conspiracy theorists will never make it into DSM-V but in the land of opportunity they can at least get into Congress.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday May 16, @06:54PM (5 children)
Conspiracy theorism would have to be seen as a sin against the Judeo-Christian god for that to happen
I suspect you're not an American, because the US was set up as a secular nation where Christians and Satanists are equally protected. The first amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, religion, and the press, and prohibits government from getting into them.
Obviously Boebert is as ignorant of our Constitution as you are, as she wants an American Christian Taliban.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday May 17, @12:30AM (3 children)
Doesn't seem to work all that well in practice. But the constitution does seem to slow down the slide into a theocracy.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 17, @03:38AM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17, @02:44PM (1 child)
It doesn't matter that the average person is less likely to be religious these days. What matters is, a particular corrrupted version of christianity (dominionism) has spent several decades in a concerted push to taking over every level of every government of every nation, and sharing the results with each other on what works and what doesn't, and what's most cost effective. See: Seven Mountains, IDU.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 18, @02:24AM
See "1) complete lack of progress towards a theocracy". It matters a lot more than you claim that the average person is less likely to be religious. Because that's where the tremendous opposition will come from for even mild dominionism policy.
(Score: 2) by OrugTor on Wednesday May 17, @04:26PM
You may have misunderstood my point. The current Supreme Court and many red state legislatures have been implementing a theocratic agenda. Hence my jibe that if a proposed law could be cast as a god's law it stands a change of passing in some jurisdictions.
I'm well aware of the secular foundation of the state. Are you aware that the foundation is being eroded by the toxic waste that is religion?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by gnuman on Tuesday May 16, @05:39PM (3 children)
Problem is effort.
When you are convinced about some "conspiracy" and get together with similar minded people, the sky is the limit! Just look at the entire anti-abortion extremist crowd. It used to be a non-issue for vast majority on either spectrum, but look how one is easily led... For science, same thing.. and the question is not of reality or facts. It's a question of motivation.
A good example of motivation can be found on any publicly faced mailing lists. If you participate in any discussions on them, you will quite quickly find some individuals that are spoiling the productivity for the rest of the crowd. They will start to discuss on tangents and argue, every single point and expect a response to their "counter arguments". Worse, they seem to have more motivation doing so than the AI. What results in dozens of people arguing more or less one side and one crazy person hijacking the discussion and arguing another. And the crazy person will have the last word, convincing that (s)he has the argument!! The rest of the people will end up being simply tired of circular logic and resign from the conversation. If you repeat that ad-museum, you end up with one person potentially sucking the goodwill an entire community.
The same applies to conspiracy theories. Except the people are more crazy and motivated. They will outspend countless hours on topics that most others ignore. But these countless hours will convert a handful more and the conspiracy theory can grow exponentially until you have maybe a percent or two of population convinced it's real. And that is dangerous because these people tend to be very motivated.
Remember, governments are toppled with generally only 4% participation in protests.
https://bigthink.com/the-present/the-3-5-percent-solution/ [bigthink.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mcgrew on Tuesday May 16, @06:59PM (1 child)
What I find incredibly hypocritical is when they say "I'm pro choice because of my Christian faith." I've read the entire King James Bible cover to cover and not once does it mention abortion or even miscarriage, and nowhere does it say when life begins.
Worse than hypocrisy is if you're against abortion but in favor of the death penalty calling yourself "pro-life". One thing that the Bible DOES say is "Satan is the father of lies."
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Thursday May 18, @06:57PM
But, in the Greek translation of the Bible, known as the Septuagint, the word that is used to translate the Hebrew term "Satan" is Σατανᾶς (Satanas). This Greek word is derived from the Hebrew term "satan" and functions similarly as a noun meaning "adversary" or "accuser." In the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament), "Satan" is not a personal name but rather a title or role. The Hebrew word "satan" means "adversary" or "accuser." It is used in different contexts throughout the Hebrew Bible to describe various figures who oppose or obstruct God's will. In these instances, "Satan" is not a specific individual but rather a descriptive term for someone who acts as an adversary. In addition to Σατανᾶς (Satanas), the Septuagint also uses other related terms to convey the concept of a spiritual adversary or opponent. Some of these terms include διάβολος (diabolos), which means "slanderer" or "accuser"m
The concept of Satan as a distinct supernatural being with a malevolent nature and authority over demons developed gradually over time, particularly in post-biblical Jewish literature and later Christian theology. In Christianity, Satan is often depicted as a fallen angel who rebelled against God and became the embodiment of evil.
So, I would say that "lies" in this context is as valid as the biblical "truth". The Bible tells us "the truth" and whoever doesn't agree is literally playing Satan :-) Well, at least in modern times we are a little less dramatic about it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Wednesday May 17, @12:32AM
Never argue with an idiot. He'll never realize when he's lost.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday May 16, @06:40PM
Not just vaccines and climate change, there's the flat earthers and the fake moon landing nuts and many others. Pick any well researched and documented truth and some dimwit will almost always come up with a conspiracy "theory" that says the science is wrong.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 16, @08:59PM
You must have had a very different internet than mine. I still remember the Plutonium Atom Totality and how blowing up the Moon would fix everything. Cranks with considerable public reach would be the first stage.
Or economics, nutrition, military science, evolution, human evolution, environmentalism, etc. Basically any subject with significant conflict of interest. This includes education.
I see several overlapping problems. First, supposed experts have let down people repeatedly. Just with your two examples, climatologists who say one thing in public and a different thing in private (a key reveal of Climategate). Or the "do as I say not as I do" games of health experts and politicians who pushed the need for mandatory mask wearing and 6 feet separation, then turn around and casually violated those rules.
It's especially bad when run through the media filter which hypes up news and pays more attention to the more alarmist presentations of science (such as decades of p-hacking in nutritional science).
Then follow that up with people who can't tell the difference (particularly when presented in media) in scientific arguments based on evidence and scientific-sounding arguments that aren't (such as arguments based from consensus and untested model building rather than evidence).
It's a recipe for both long term distrust of genuine science and people listening more to high profile theater that looks credible.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 16, @03:33AM
Sounds like the setup to a Tom Lehrer song. Or an alien invasion [wikipedia.org] documentary.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16, @05:34AM (5 children)
Sometimes, you /know/ your data will be inaccurate in particular ways, and you can adjust for it.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/ [arstechnica.com]
I mean, your volt/ohm/ampere meter has a zero adjust*, does that mean it's lying to you?
* Jebus, am I ever showing my age, everyone else has gone digital.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by driverless on Tuesday May 16, @05:59AM (4 children)
The vacuum tubes in it drift over time, and even with temperature, so it's perfectly sensible to allow you to re-zero them.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Opportunist on Tuesday May 16, @07:30AM
So does our knowledge of the universe. It changes. We learn. We gain new insights. We realize that we were wrong.
The difference between dogmatic belief and science is now that one admits that mistake, learns from it and corrects its position and the other one doubles down on it with additional excuses why whatever bollocks they originally claimed was right.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 16, @05:29PM (2 children)
The same is true of thermocouples but suddenly it's a conspiracy theory to fake global warming.
And I've seen this exact bullshit right here on several occasions.
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Tuesday May 16, @05:56PM
Is this fake an "adjective" or a "verb"?
If it's meant to be a verb, then it's probably better to say " ... but suddenly it's being turned into a conspiracy ..."
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 17, @03:43AM
If global warming is real, then why are my thermocouples cold?