0
billvon

Climate change denial perceptions

Recommended Posts

Interesting study as reported by the Guardian.

It can be easy to read social media and think that there are a lot of climate change deniers out there - and that due to their numbers they are influential.  Turns out a significant fraction of them are bots.

So the next time you see a bunch of tweets or Facebook posts from someone that looks like a climate change denier, consider that it might well be a paid effort to make it LOOK like there are a lot of people who support climate change denial.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/21/climate-tweets-twitter-bots-analysis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, billvon said:

Interesting study as reported by the Guardian.

It can be easy to read social media and think that there are a lot of climate change deniers out there - and that due to their numbers they are influential.  Turns out a significant fraction of them are bots.

So the next time you see a bunch of tweets or Facebook posts from someone that looks like a climate change denier, consider that it might well be a paid effort to make it LOOK like there are a lot of people who support climate change denial.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/21/climate-tweets-twitter-bots-analysis

Bothutch? Makes sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
11 hours ago, billvon said:

Turns out a significant fraction of them are bots.

At least they're bots and not people that   should actually know better:

 

 

It's pretty much back then when I stopped listening to people like you, because it was so obvious how full of shit your argument was, and how you used it to deceive people.  Nothing much has changed, especially in the political realm.

. . .  and it's kinda sad, because you had an influence on right leaning/moderates, and you sold out just to look good in front of the left leaning/liberals that quite frankly don't fk'ing know any better.

 

 

 

Edited by Coreece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Coreece said:

It's pretty much back then when I stopped listening to people like you, because it was so obvious how full of shit your argument was, and how you used it to deceive people.  Nothing much has changed, especially in the political realm.

. . .  and it's kinda sad, because you had an influence on right leaning/moderates, and you sold out just to look good in front of the left leaning/liberals that quite frankly don't fk'ing know any better.

I will never have any influence on you or people like you.  I am OK with that.   Nor will I ever "look good" to the really green liberals, with my stances on nuclear power and natural gas.  I am also OK with that.  I'm not here to win any popularity contests.

But the reason that more people are coming to accept climate change is not that anyone is going to convince them - but because they have seen the flooding and the droughts and the fires, and not even Trump himself is going to convince an uneducated anti-science voter that their house is not literally on fire.  The whole "it's not warming!  It's natural!  There's no consensus!" worked when there were no visible signs of the warming; that's not true any more.

So in the long run the deniers will lose.  In the short term they can do a lot of damage, of course, but if that's how they want to spend their time . . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you say floods and droughts in the same sentence?  Just like when you guys say that global warming will cause less snow while simultaneously cause more snow. 

BTW my viewpoint has, and will continue to prevail. 

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
27 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you say floods and droughts in the same sentence?  Just like when you guys say that global warming will cause less snow while simultaneously causing more snow. 

You don't seem to be the kind of man who worries all that much about sounding ridiculous. Judging by some of the positions you espouse that is.

Edited by gowlerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you say floods and droughts in the same sentence?

I imagine I sound the same as the people who claimed you could have affluence and poverty in the same country - or the people who said that you'd get more extremes of weather as AGW has continued.  Or the people who claim that eating too much of the wrong sort of food can leave you malnourished.  I'm OK being lumped in with those people, and I understand that you can't comprehend that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, billvon said:

the reason that more people are coming to accept climate change is not that anyone is going to convince them - but because they have seen the flooding and the droughts and the fires

Fine, then no need for silly over-dramatic exaggerations and scary yet impractical wet bulb temps to whip everyone inline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Fine, then no need for silly over-dramatic exaggerations and scary yet impractical wet bulb temps to whip everyone inline.

Not sure what "an impractical wet bulb temp" is.  Impractical or not, they will be a bigger deal in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, billvon said:
30 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Fine, then no need for silly over-dramatic exaggerations and scary yet impractical wet bulb temps to whip everyone inline.

Not sure what "an impractical wet bulb temp" is.  Impractical or not, they will be a bigger deal in the future.

Third time:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Third time:

 

Thanks for the reference.  Nothing about an "impractical" wet bulb temp in there though.

It was neat to see at least one poster from back then who has since come to understand climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, billvon said:

Thanks for the reference.  Nothing about an "impractical" wet bulb temp in there though.

My bad.  In those threads we were talking about wet bulb temps and the heat index.  I'm actually referring to the theoretical heat index of 165F.

You linked to a calculator to show that it wasn't some scary number that they just made up, however, there is a note below that calculator saying "The Heat Index calculation may produce meaningless results for temperatures and dew points outside of the range depicted on the Heat Index Chart linked below."

Here's the Heat Index Chart they're referring to:

heatindexchart-650.jpg

 

A heat index of 165F would seem to fall in the meaningless, theoretical nonsense portion of the chart.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0