| Climate deniers have garnered far more media attention than prominent climate scientists over the years, fuelling public confusion and slowing the response to global warming, researchers reported Tuesday. From 2000 through 2016, hundreds of academics, business people and politicians who doubted global warming or attributed rising temperatures to "natural" causes got 50 percent more ink than an equal number of top scientists, according to a study in Nature Communications, a peer-reviewed journal. Even in a more select group of mainstream English language news outlets with high standards of evidence—from the New York Times and The Guardian to The Wall Street Journal and the Daily Telegraph—sceptics were still cited slightly more often. In reality, there has long been overwhelming agreement among climate scientists that global warming—caused mainly by burning fossil fuels—poses a major threat to civilisation and much of life on Earth. https://phys.org/news/2019-08-climate-deniers-media-scientists.html https://news.ucmerced.edu/news/2019/media-creates-false-balance-climate-science-study-shows study source here - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4 too much freedom? news media needs more regulation too right? obviously they are doing this for more profit giving doubts to the public to make them want to learn about this things called alternative facts lol |
degAug 17, 2019 3:47 AM
| Well, that's fucked up. Toxicity brings in more TRP. Also, most of the climate change deniers are powerful people like trump so that's expected. |
 "All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost." |
| People tend to associate and relate to other regular people. When a scientist shows up on the telly, retards think: He talks in maths, spells, and black magic! His intellect intimidates us! Retards relate to other retards. |
| The so-called press is a business, and it's obvious that people prefer controversy over academic content. Freedom of speech was a mistake from the start |
 |
UnoPuntoCinco said: Cue the pro-corporate ass kissing "Hurr, but CNN & Fox are private businesses and have a right to peddle misinformation. Just start up your own television network if you don't like it!"The so-called press is a business, and it's obvious that people prefer controversy over academic content. Freedom of speech was a mistake from the start |
 |
Bayek said: Bizarre personalities provide bizarre opinions. Don't try with him, you'll be wasting your time. UnoPuntoCinco said: Cue the pro-corporate ass kissing "Hurr, but CNN & Fox are private businesses and have a right to peddle misinformation. Just start up your own television network if you don't like it!"The so-called press is a business, and it's obvious that people prefer controversy over academic content. Freedom of speech was a mistake from the start |
| It's funny how many of those climate deniers like Trump are actually fully aware of the global warming and the threats it poses to mankind. |
Yarub said: I think @bayek was agreeing with me. So often I'm on your mind!Bayek said: Bizarre personalities provide bizarre opinions. Don't try with him, you'll be wasting your time. Cue the pro-corporate ass kissing "Hurr, but CNN & Fox are private businesses and have a right to peddle misinformation. Just start up your own television network if you don't like it!" |
|
UnoPuntoCinco said: Well, do private businesses have the right to voluntarily pass on false information where you're from? I thought he was mocking you, because here it's not allowed. Technically.Yarub said: I think @bayek was agreeing with me. So often I'm on your mind!Bizarre personalities provide bizarre opinions. Don't try with him, you'll be wasting your time. |
Yarub said: By The Dog! I don't know what that has to do with mine and bayek's interaction. Firstly I scuffed at people's ability to say whatever they want on massive media, thinking on nothing but their monetary gain. It seems that bayek agreed with me for he typed a hypotetic rethorical rebuttal from a pro-business person perspective, he mocks those people as the hurr in his phrasing shows. Well, do private businesses have the right to voluntarily pass on false information where you're from? I thought he was mocking you, because here it's not allowed. Technically. What does this have to do with my country's legislation on mass media? Irregardless of that being a tangential issue, I do not only think that mass media shouldn't be putting out false information. I believe they should not be discussing these kind of topics concerning natural science as if it was an spectacle or "debate", even more so since they affect everyone's lives. |
|
UnoPuntoCinco said: Oh... Okay. It seems I misread the previous posts. Thanks for the clarification and I apologize for that.Yarub said: By The Dog! I don't know what that has to do with mine and bayek's interaction. Firstly I scuffed at people's ability to say whatever they want on massive media, thinking on nothing but their monetary gain. It seems that bayek agreed with me for he typed a hypotetic rethorical rebuttal from a pro-business person perspective, he mocks those people as the hurr in his phrasing shows. Well, do private businesses have the right to voluntarily pass on false information where you're from? I thought he was mocking you, because here it's not allowed. Technically. What does this have to do with my country's legislation on mass media? Irregardless of that being a tangential issue, I do not only think that mass media shouldn't be putting out false information. I believe they should not be discussing these kind of topics concerning natural science as if it was an spectacle or "debate", even more so since they affect everyone's lives. |
Yarub said: I can confirm that I was agreeing with him. I'm so used to shitposting that I forget to articulate my full intent sometimes.Well, do private businesses have the right to voluntarily pass on false information where you're from? I thought he was mocking you, because here it's not allowed. Technically. And yeah, it's not technically allowed in America, either. The mainstream media just spins information to suit their agenda instead of outright falsifying it. The news is all just theatrics at this point because that's what generates attention & profits. |
|
| I bet you it doesn't get more media attention than #OrangeManBad |
Yarub said: No hay problema. Cheers, mate.UnoPuntoCinco said: Oh... Okay. It seems I misread the previous posts. Thanks for the clarification and I apologize for that.By The Dog! I don't know what that has to do with mine and bayek's interaction. Firstly I scuffed at people's ability to say whatever they want on massive media, thinking on nothing but their monetary gain. It seems that bayek agreed with me for he typed a hypotetic rethorical rebuttal from a pro-business person perspective, he mocks those people as the hurr in his phrasing shows. What does this have to do with my country's legislation on mass media? Irregardless of that being a tangential issue, I do not only think that mass media shouldn't be putting out false information. I believe they should not be discussing these kind of topics concerning natural science as if it was an spectacle or "debate", even more so since they affect everyone's lives. |
|
| The primary issue is one that's an issue for anyone trying to sell an idea: Marketing. From the beginning, those who reported about the climate change issue have had severe communication problems and it kept going until it reached a point where just fixing that would simply be too late already. But what do I mean with "badly communicated"? There are several issues: 1. The initial explanation itself was lacking. It took a while until anyone even made a comprehensive explanation about the issue for layman. Instead the general public was basically forced into a "trust us sceinstist when we say that things are bad", which doesn't quite adhere to the curious mind of people who'd like to have at least a general understanding of the issue. Explaining the greehouse effect itself is not enough for that. 2. The treatment of skeptics. If the primary counter against any refutation attempts are "we have a consensus" and "the skeptic is just an oil shill", then it feels like the defending side is not actually engaging in the issue and instead are just dismissing any dissent like some authoritarian government. Granted, that does not include everyone on that side and it'd be unfair to claim otherwise. But some individuals on that side like Michael Mann are basically constantly invoking the climate-debate equivalent of Godwin's law. "Everyone who disagrees is an oil shill" or such phrases. It doesn't help, but actually damages their cause instead. On top of that, the terms invented for this issue are pure cringe. When someone reads "Climate Denier", what's the first understanding of the term that comes to mind? Definitly not "someone who denies climate change", but rather "someone who denies the very existence of any climate itself", which seems ridiculous and doesn't help the cause either. Frankly, regardless of the argument itself, this term itself is extremely cringy and anyone using it unironically should take another look, to put it midly. 3. Too much focus on graphs. The phrase "correlation does not equal causation" is fairly widespread and showing graphs really isn't the way to go here. Just make a damn power point presentation by someone competent at making them. If that had been done from the start, the skepticism would never have been as much as it is. Show people graphics insteads of graphs. 4. Too much focus on (failed) predictions. Don't go that way. Scientists aren't prophets. Just keep it at tendencies (i.e. the warming is accelerating x times faster compared to the usual cycle, etc.) rather than long-term projections (in x years the streets of New York will be submerged). People got stuck in their heads that weather reports aren't reliable and no matter how much emphasis is put on "the climate is different from that", the association with the weather forecast is not easily written off from the peoples' minds. Not to mention that using "computer models" for any sort of predictions reminds people of how the same is done for stock markets (both have human influence), yet there are so many people who get it wrong and lose a lot of money as a result. No reason is provided for why climate-based predictions are more reliable than stock market predictions. If that were better communicated, it'd be much less of a problem - and that is true regardless of whether the climate change argument is true or not. etc. |
 |
| False balance, also bothsidesism, is a media bias in which journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance i just recently learn about this word false balance |
| Exactly, 99% of people believe CC but 1% (American Right wingers) do not. But they get 50% of the screen time/written paragraphs because everyone wants to make it seem balanced but in fact it's nowhere near balanced. Only the people whos wealth depends on denying it and the easily brainwashed believe it's made up. |
 |
149597871 said: It's funny how many of those climate deniers like Trump are actually fully aware of the global warming and the threats it poses to mankind. Climate skeptics are not the people who don't believe in global warming. They just think that human activities do not affect climate. People who believe that global warming (which is something easily observable) doesn't exist are straight-up lunatics. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |