The geoengineering of consent: How conspiracists dominate YouTube climate science content

Most YouTube videos relating to climate change prevention oppose scientific consensus and hijack technical terms to appear credible, says study

Frontiers

Using YouTube to learn about climate-change-related topics will expose you to video content that mostly opposes worldwide scientific consensus.

That’s the finding of a new study published in Frontiers in Communication, which also reveals that some scientific terms, such as geoengineering, have been ‘hijacked’ by conspiracy theorists so that searches provide entirely non-scientific video content. Scientists could counteract this by forming alliances with influential YouTubers, politicians and those in popular culture, to ensure scientifically accurate video content reaches the widest-possible audience.

“Searching YouTube for climate-science and climate-engineering-related terms finds fewer than half of the videos represent mainstream scientific views,” says study author Dr. Joachim Allgaier, Senior Researcher at the RWTH Aachen University. “It’s alarming to find that the majority of videos propagate conspiracy theories about climate science and technology.”

Nearly 2 billion logged-in users – half the world online – visit YouTube every month, and research has shown that users see it as a platform for learning about science, health and technology.

Climate conspiracists

Allgaier wanted to know if the information YouTube users found, when searching for scientific information on climate change and climate modification, represented scientifically accurate views.

“So far, research has focused on the most-watched videos, checking their scientific accuracy, but this doesn’t tell us what an average internet user will find, as the results are influenced by previous search and watch histories,” reports Allgaier. “To combat this, I used the anonymization tool TOR to avoid personalization of the results.”

Employing ten climate change-related search terms, Allgaier analyzed 200 videos about climate change and climate modification topics. He found that the majority of these videos opposed the worldwide scientific consensus, as detailed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Most videos propagated the so-called “chemtrails” conspiracy theory, which is a belief that the condensation trails of airplanes are purposefully enriched with harmful substances to modify the weather, control human populations, or for biological or chemical warfare. Scientists have clearly shown there is no evidence for such a large-scale secret atmospheric spraying program.

Geoengineering has been hijacked

Alarmingly, Allgaier found that the conspiracy theorists have ‘hijacked’ some relatively recent scientific terms by using them to describe their worldview of a global conspiracy. In fact, ‘chemtrailers’, as they are known, explicitly advise their followers to use scientific terms in their content, so that they are not immediately identified as conspiracy theorists.

“Within the scientific community, ‘geoengineering’ describes technology with the potential to deal with the serious consequences of climate change, if we don’t manage to reduce greenhouse gases successfully. For example, greenhouse gas removal, solar radiation management or massive forestation to absorb carbon dioxide,” explains Allgaier. “However, people searching for ‘geoengineering’ or ‘climate modification’ on YouTube won’t find any information on these topics in the way they are discussed by scientists and engineers. Instead, searching for these terms results in videos that leave users exposed to entirely non-scientific video content.”

Allgaier also questions YouTube search algorithms – does its business model direct traffic towards videos of dubious scientific content? He found some of the conspiracy videos being monetized by the users via adverts or the sale of merchandise with conspiracy-theory motives.

“The way YouTube search algorithms work is not very transparent. We should be aware this powerful artificial intelligence is already making decisions for us, for example, if you choose to use ‘auto-play’. I think YouTube should take responsibility to ensure its users will find high-quality information if they search for scientific and biomedical terms, instead of being exposed to doubtful conspiracy videos,” argues Allgaier.

Scientists and YouTubers unite!

To counter the non-scientific content on YouTube, Allgaier, who recently spoke at the World Conference of Science Journalists about his work, suggests scientists and science communicators should take YouTube seriously as a platform for sharing scientific information.

“YouTube has an enormous reach as an information channel, and some of the popular science YouTubers are doing an excellent job at communicating complex subjects and reaching new audiences. Scientists could form alliances with science-communicators, politicians and those in popular culture in order to reach out to the widest-possible audience. They should speak out publicly about their research and be transparent in order to keep established trustful relationships with citizens and society.”

###

Please link to the original research article in your reporting: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00036/

Corresponding author: Dr. Joachim Allgaier, joachim.allgaier@humtec.rwth-aachen.de

Frontiers is an award-winning Open Science platform and leading open-access scholarly publisher. Our mission is to make high-quality, peer-reviewed research articles rapidly and freely available to everybody in the world, thereby accelerating scientific and technological innovation, societal progress and economic growth. Frontiers received the 2014 ALPSP Gold Award for Innovation in Publishing. For more information, visit http://www.frontiersin.org and follow @Frontiersin on Twitter.

From EurekAlert!

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

95 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 26, 2019 11:53 am

If there is an attack on climate science, it is coming from those invested in alarm. Recent example is TED Talks putting a warming label on a lecture by Marcl Crok (his name appears on the blog list here). His presentation is concise and well supported by evidence, yet the network claims his views are not scientific.
Talk is here:
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIIl3CNhsBw&w=640&h=360%5D

My synopsis is at https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2019/07/23/10934/

David Wojick
July 26, 2019 2:27 pm

http://ccdedu.blogspot.com

For the children, among others.

Anonymous
July 26, 2019 2:48 pm

>terms such as Climate, Climate Change, or Climate Science are most likely to bring up videos […] with mainstream scientific positions
So unless you’re looking for chemtrails you actually do find a majority of mainstream views.
That’s sad, but it is also the opposite of what I got from Watt’s article.

Anonymous
Reply to  Anonymous
July 26, 2019 2:49 pm

s/Watt’s/Watts’/

commieBob
July 26, 2019 11:37 pm

Once more I learn something at WUWT.

I was going to observe that Engineering Consent was written by Noam Chomsky. It wasn’t. He wrote Manufacturing Consent. The Engineering of Consent is a totally different book by Edward Bernays.

Consent that is thus engineered is difficult to distinguish in any fundamental way from the consent that supports modern totalitarian governments.

That should make a thinking person’s blood run cold.

Reply to  commieBob
July 27, 2019 6:53 am

Related – see also “The Delphi Technique”- Delphi Technique: for Decision Making and Problem Solving https://www.toolshero.com/decision-making/delphi-technique/

As with any tool or technique, it can be used for good or for bad, maliciously or beneficially.

Julie
July 26, 2019 11:37 pm

Ok is this article really trying to say Geo engineering is not happening?? Cause YES IT IS, BABY, YES IT IS!

Reply to  Julie
July 27, 2019 6:37 am

Spurious claim.

A spurious claim is one that’s not backed up by the facts.

A spurious claim, a spurious argument, relies on faulty reasoning — and maybe some lies.

Not that you are lying, Julie, but your source, what you are reading is – a lie.

DocSiders
July 27, 2019 5:38 am

In case anyone here hasn’t used YouTube to view climate related videos…

YouTube places a piece of CAGW propaganda (with a heading called “Global warming” and Wikipedia link) directly below the “screen” of every climate related video.

July 27, 2019 8:11 pm

This article actually shows that You Tubers like Marc Morano and other sceptics using this media to counter mainstream consensus propaganda is very effective indeed. The usual technique is to state several central tenets pushed by dangerous manmade warming proponents or alarmist supporters and then present graphs and other information DRAWN FROM OFFICIAL SOURCES such as NOAA, NASA, IPCC, etc. that show the alarm is completely unjustified.

Tornadoes, floods, droughts, hurricanes, etc. are NOT showing increased frequency or strength or higher normalized damage occurring. Sealevel rise is NOT accelerating, natural variation is proving to be a greater driver of temperatures than GHG and the effect of latter has had to scaled back by warmist proponents because projected temperatures have been 300% to high. The causal relationship between temperature changes and CO2 is even becoming evermore doubtful even in sign, and at best, the 2 decade Pause in Temperatures with galloping CO2 seems to relegate it to marginally effective in raising temperatures.

Polar bears are growing in numbers and health, penguins are thriving…seriously reduced numbers of caribou turned out to have been because they moved away and then came back!

The You Tube sceptics simply present the data that is being lied about. Yeah, you got it right. You are going to have to conspire with alarmist scientists, the MSM, and owners of the media to gatekeep, shadowblock, fiddle search engines, etc to hide this compelling sceptic stuff from the public if you want to bamboozle them. BTW, your “strawman” thing about kemtrales is your clients’ BS, not that of sceptics! You communications experts must suspect the truth that sceptics aren’t better at messaging skills than the Team scientists, the message from your clients is simply woefully supported by facts.

Matthew K
July 29, 2019 1:12 am

YouTube is the last place I’d ever go for climate information. YouTube is especially biased towards the climate alarmist agendas. There are tons of videos on YouTube that many gullible people would take seriously. I’ve watched a fair share of these videos and they have had a negative impact on my health and psychological well-being, and that’s enough to drive a person insane. YouTube is a cesspool of garbage that caters to fear mongering, and climate change is among these (Other garbage of this nature includes fake news, end of the world predictions, and other tosh).