قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Science / 11 things that climate change kills, "people say on social media

11 things that climate change kills, "people say on social media




<div _ngcontent-c14 = "" innerhtml = "

It is clear that the climate is changing, and there is a human component on the naturally varying system." Most climate researchers understand that and most logical people too The 4th National Climate Assessment Report is a good place to confirm these statements: Every year, the Yale Climate Communication group and the George Mason University scholars poll the American public about their views on climate change a certain percentage that falls into one category According to the authors of the study

the Dismissive are very sure that this (climate change) is not happening and they are active as opponents of a citizen's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

1

9659004] Currently the percentage is about nine percent . Although their numbers are low, they are often very high in social media loud, persistent, aggressive and angry. Over time, I've found 11 "Dismissive" tactics in social media.

2018 Six Results in America Yale Climate Communication

Ice ages. There always seems to be ice age and some statements about natural cycles. To be honest, this is amazing, because most climate scientists are aware of the different types of climate change. The discussion about climate change is not an "either /" or "discussion". It is a "and" discussion. Grass grows naturally and grows differently with fertilized soil. Trees fall naturally into the forest "and" they can "be cut off by a chainsaw.

This article from the 1970s. Apparently, in 1975, Newsweek had an article in which it was about a" cooling world It is amusing to see how often this is cited in social media: As described in Forbes

no, a journal article, some people and some literature say that this is not the majority of scientists or scientific studies The author of this journal article has even exposed this himself

I quote a random study. I call this one-mania mania. Over the years, I've seen people criticizing peer review literature talking about how unreliable or biased they are In the literature it is still an important gatekeeper against the bad science in. Likewise, the FDA is for bad food od he bad drugs. Here is the kicker. Once a study supporting a "confirmatory bias point" appears, they quickly cite the study to support their point of view.

"Grand Poobah" effect. I often watch this on social media. A person does not necessarily have a strong background in climate science, but relies on a scientist or personality to talk or confirm their positions. You will often even mention or tag this person in their social media post. I call it the "Grand Poobah" effect and have written about it before.

Doubt and its merchants . In general, there are some examples of comments about scientists and grant money. This statement shows that the process of science aid is not understood. Here is a good "101" at this link. There are strict procedures for obtaining grants based on scientific research and reviews. There are also "other" funding models and gray literature publications advocating certain positions or misinformation. Traders of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway is a good book to dig deeper into the latter.

certification. This is the era when a "tweet" is supposed to have as much weight as a degree or years of scientific investigation. The "Dunning – Kruger effect" has an impact on the social media. A commonly used strategy is "I have a degree in (filling favorite discipline that is not climate science or climatology)" or "I am learning this in my spare time while eating biscuits in my cellar."

Distraction . Another tactic that I perceive is the question of distraction. This is usually a random, "seemingly" intellectual, provocative or irrelevant issue that presents the climate scientist with a "public weapon".

It's cold. I'm sure you saw this winter: "It's cold or snowing, so global warming can not exist." No, the day or the week is a manifestation of the weather. It is not "where you live" warming. It is not "my little part of the planet on this special day".

You changed the name. Speaking of global warming, there are always a handful of people who find devious intentions in dealing with climate change or global warming. I've discussed the reasons why this is another smoking and mirroring tactic in a previous piece by Forbes.

No profile and few followers. Many of the dismissive comments come from reports with a few followers (less than 10) or no profile picture. I suspect these are "bots". I assume that this technically does not "say", as the title of the article implies, but you understand what it is about.

Storms always took place . This is very common. The above comments on trees that fall in the forest or the relationship between grass and fertilizer relate to such statements.

I'm sure you can name others that I've missed, and I hope I've noticed all the "typos" because they're focusing on them like a laser.

Enough of that, it's time to watch some college tires.

The Six Americas on Climate Change Yale Climate Communication

">

It's Clear That Climate Most climate scientists understand that, and most logical people understand that. The 4th National Report on Climate Change Analysis is a good place to confirm these statements Every year, The Yale Climate Communication Group and George Mason University question the American public on their views on climate change: Within this study, there is always a certain percentage that falls into one category uthors,

the Dismissive are very certain that this will not happen (climate change), and are actively involved as opponents of national efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Currently the percentage is around nine percent . Although their numbers are low, they are often very loud, persistent, in social media, a aggressive and angry. Over time, I've found 11 "Dismissive" tactics on social media.

2018 Six Results in America Yale Climate Communication

Ice Age There always seems to be ice age and some statements about natural cycles. To be honest, this is amazing, because most climate scientists are aware of the different types of climate change. The discussion about climate change is not an "either /" or "discussion". It is a "and" discussion. Grass grows naturally and grows differently with fertilized soil. Trees fall naturally into the forest "and" they can "be cut off by a chainsaw.

This article from the 1970s. Apparently, in 1975, Newsweek had an article in which it was about a" cooling world It is amusing to see how often this is cited in social media As already described in Forbes

a journal article, some people and literature did not mention the majority of scientists or scientific studies Magazine article has even exposed this myself

I quote a random study. I call this one-mania mania. Over the years, I've seen people criticizing peer-reviewed literature, talking about how unreliable or biased they are In the literature, it is still an important gatekeeper against bad science in. Similarly, the FDA is in favor of bad food or sc gentle drugs. Here is the kicker. Once a study supporting a "confirmatory bias point" appears, they quickly cite the study to support their point of view.

"Grand Poobah" effect. I often watch this on social media. A person does not necessarily have a strong background in climate science, but relies on a scientist or personality to talk or confirm their positions. You will often even mention or tag this person in their social media post. I call it the "Grand Poobah" effect and have written about it before.

Doubt and its merchants . In general, there are some examples of comments about scientists and grant money. This statement shows that the process of science aid is not understood. Here is a good "101" at this link. There are strict procedures for obtaining grants based on scientific research and reviews. There are also "other" funding models and gray literature publications advocating certain positions or misinformation. Traders of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway is a good book to dig deeper into the latter.

certification. This is the era when a "tweet" is supposed to have as much weight as a degree or years of scientific investigation. The "Dunning – Kruger effect" has an impact on the social media. A commonly used strategy is "I have a degree in (filling favorite discipline that is not climate science or climatology)" or "I am learning this in my spare time while eating biscuits in my cellar."

Distraction . Another tactic that I perceive is the question of distraction. This is usually a random, "seemingly" intellectual, provocative or irrelevant issue that presents the climate scientist with a "public weapon".

It's cold. I'm sure you saw this winter: "It's cold or snowing, so global warming can not exist." No, the day or the week is a manifestation of the weather. It is not "where you live" warming. It is not "my little part of the planet on this special day".

You changed the name. Speaking of global warming, there are always a handful of people who find devious intentions in dealing with climate change or global warming. I've discussed the reasons why this is another smoking and mirroring tactic in a previous piece by Forbes.

No profile and few followers. Many of the dismissive comments come from reports with a few followers (less than 10) or no profile picture. I suspect these are "bots". I assume that this technically does not "say", as the title of the article implies, but you understand what it is about.

Storms always took place . This is very common. The above comments on trees that fall in the forest or the relationship between grass and fertilizer relate to such statements.

I'm sure you can name others I've missed, and I hope I've noticed all the "typos" because they focus on them like a laser too.

Enough of that, it's time to watch some college tires.

The Six Americas on Climate Change Yale Climate Communication


Source link