Who’s been naughty?~ctm
Science Alert is upset
Over the past two weeks, something unprecedented has happened on ScienceAlert’s Facebook page. And we need to talk about it.
As members of the Covering Climate Now initiative, we recently strengthened our coverage of climate change. We also proudly supported the Global Climate Strike on 20 September 2019, a day that saw over four million people staging protests around the world, demanding climate action as signs of environmental breakdown rapidly encompass our little blue marble.
OMG! We are all Russian Bots!
Our readers have expressed surprise at just how many climate change deniers appear to be following us. Lately, every time we post a climate news article on Facebook, with astonishing speed and ferocity the comment section becomes a hot-pot of climate denialism.
Posts will receive hundreds of comments in a short amount of time, often in wild disproportion to the actual reach of the post, or the readership of the article itself. Those metrics are a clear sign the engagement is not organic, but is coming from a targeted source.
They lurk in those dark corners…other there! And they’re funded! yeah that’s the ticket…funded!
We don’t know where these climate trolls roost. Maybe they come from self-organizing grassroots groups with secret Facebook pages. Perhaps the fact they all use the same language and the same memes is indicative of receiving talking points and funding from the fossil fuel industry. Perhaps.
What matters is that ScienceAlert’s Facebook page is being targeted, and we are taking action.
Please Stepford children, follow these instructions.
How you engage in our comment section on Facebook is crucial. When you see one of our posts about climate news, there will inevitably be climate troll comments underneath it. They will post inflammatory, false statements. Offensive memes. They are trying to upset you.
Do not let them. When you see a climate troll comment, please respond by simply tagging ScienceAlert, so our moderators can deal with it as soon as they’re able.
We can’t stress that enough: do not engage.
HT/ozspeaksup
The Thunberg boomerang effect. The public relations team went over the top with Greta giving her apocalyptic nonsense top billing on mainstream news. This has backfired spectacularly as people without interest in the climate debate only saw a privileged girl with mental health issues that has been brainwashed and in response they have started to call out the alarmists.
” … but is coming from a targeted source.”
“As nouns the difference between target and source is that target is a butt or mark to shoot at, as for practice, or to test the accuracy of a firearm, or the force of a projectile while source is the person, place or thing from which something (information, goods, etc) comes or is acquired.”
https://wikidiff.com/content/target-vs-source-whats-difference-0
Let’s all pop over to that site and tag the warmista comments to the moderators…
No, don’t do it. It’ll melt your mind and turn you into a true believer of CAGW.
That’s an appealing idea.
The best trolling is to be subversive. I went over and read afew posts to get a feel for the place. One commenter said that even though they had a PhD in Astronomy, they didn’t have the right to critique a climate scientists’ work.
I pointed out that neither Mann, Hansen, nor Schmidt had degrees in Climate Science, but were physicists, astronomers, mathematicians, etc., and that every scientist had the duty to critique poor science when they saw it.
So far I’ve had one like. It’s all in the presentation.
I’ll say this. We can win the Internet. I follow some pages that do about 10% climate stories. Be polite and reasonable. One of my favorites is to go with what AR5 says. You know the economists to mention. I do think Science Alert is paranoid.
Ragnaar
You said, “I do think Science Alert is paranoid.” Along with The Conversation.
It is so easy to troll sites like Science Alert that Cherry Pick facts to fit their narrative. Their latest one is on how far east in the Atlantic Basin that Hurricane Lorenzo became a major hurricane. They note this is the first time since Julia in 2010, as it is a sign of Climate Change. But a commenter then pointed out 5 other hurricanes besides Julia-2010 that reached major hurricane status east of 45W longitude in the previous 30 years. Oopps.
But now that commenter it is troll because he pointed out facts not consistent with the desired narrative.
It’s apparently “trolling” to point out facts they are trying to ignore.
That also makes McIntyre and McKittrick trolls for destroying Man”s hockey stick fraud.
To be clear:
It is not Trolling to point out “inconvenient” facts ignored such as the historical record of hurricanes.
Surely it doesn’t matter?
If they use the same language and same memes then one defeat will defeat them all.
So what’s the problem for Science Alert?
Unless they can’t actually win the argument with facts or logic.
Perhaps.
the truth has a funny way of being the SAME day in and day out … they are saying the same truthful thing …
Science Alert, another flat-Earth… [social] consensus platform.
According to USA’s Census.gov
USA’s population is approximately 329,000,000 people.
Which puts the protestors at 0.12% if all those kooks were protesting just in America.
The world’s population estimate clocks at approximately 7,601,000,000.
Which puts the protestors at 0.052625% of the globe’s populations.
I believe that puts their climate protest squarely in the “No one cares” department.
Ironically, that’s about the same percentage as CO2 in the atmosphere.
WAAAAAAHHHHH! There are meanies that don’t agree with our godlike scientific consensus so we are labelling them trolls and we will DESTROY them. Really, WE are the gods, and you WILL submit. Got it?????
(Any moron getting their science from Facebook is hopelessly lost. No one should waste their time on such a hopelessly stupid venue. This Russian crap is getting old, too. I sense desperation setting in.)
“…as signs of environmental breakdown rapidly encompass our little blue marble.”
These people clearly live on another planet. There’s nothing like that happening here.
They have been taught that if it is bad, CO2 caused it, and it never happened before. Just ignore those lying history books.
Sooo, I’ve never actually visited Science Alert, and I decided to take a look and see what kind of science they are alerting us to.
In addition to all the usual Climate Bedwetting we usually see from the Faithful, there are stories on how Aliens may have already visited Earth, Someone finding evidence of Noah’s Ark, Hidden Messages in Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’, and dating advice from a 2 headed woman (women?).
Seriously, all that on the front page when I visited.
>¿<
I saw “Alien Research Group Started by Blink-182 Singer Says It’s Found ‘Exotic UFO Material'”
But I also saw
https://www.sciencealert.com/computers-are-making-huge-mistakes-because-they-can-t-understand-chaos-scientists-warn
Which is quite inconsistent with their stance on climate science.
They also have a story
“Computers Are Making Huge Mistakes Because They Can’t Understand Chaos, Scientists Warn”
Ummm don’t climate models run on computers?
And, the climate they model has chaotic system components.
yup and the dude who worked that out…WAS running cli sci on his pc
Ive sent it to Charles
makes a proper mockery of ALL the models claims;-)))
not that they werent a total ballsup and visibly so compared to reality
WHERE’S MY CHECK?!
A bigot is someone who is intolerant of the views of others.
This also applies to The Conversation. Even more insane because both of these sites are supposedly scientific, but REAL science is open. To even think of having it closed off to certain views is totally anti-science.
Interestingly, it is difficult to argue with a “science” (read pseudoscience) that has no actual evidence and has made-up science. An example of made up science is positive feedback. This simply can not happen in a dynamic equilibrium, which has been the case for 4.5 billion years. The entire scenario is founded upon very shaky assumptions, but if exposing these shaky assumptions is banned, the tower will continue to grow on these foundations of bovine excrement. When it eventually topples, things will become very messy indeed for those that thought they lived in an ivory tower.
As they know the foundations are shaky, they will do whatever they can to prop up the narrative. Look out for ever more absurd behaviour from the warmists. Alas, this WILL include calls for locking up sceptics and then executing sceptics. Think I am joking? “Deniers” are already being punished by losing funding and employment. The “denier” slur will be their justification for further crimes against humanity.
It is up to us to continue exposing the flaws in their narrative and waking people up before climate tyranny engulfs humanity . We need to get that pendulum swinging back – get the ivory tower of climate pseudoscience to implode in to its own cesspit of excrement.
A bigot is a sanctimonious hypocrite. The special and peculiar interests, the politicians and people, who promote and profit from the prophecy of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming adhere to a selective, opportunistic quasi-religious/moral philosophy (“ethics”). They are unprincipled, highly relativistic, and are technically not bigots. They are divergent, which is officially and popularly portrayed and perceived as “tolerant”
“A bigot is someone who is intolerant of the views of others.”
======================
Some words have meaning, some need interpretation.
Sometimes authors are just lazy.
“Those metrics are a clear sign the engagement is not organic, but is coming from a targeted source.” They’ve detected the signal — just like with global warming!!!
In the liberal world, reality hurts… D’OH !
Interesting, because, from my perspective, the climate trolls are those who invade discussions about real science and real evidence, to hand wave about impending climate doom.
Instantaneous peer revue! I love it. And a bit like the biter bit. Love it even more👍👍
Don’t feed the Trolls said the Dwarfs.
I posted “If we keep adding carbon to the atmosphere then animals will grow huge again. Carbon was the cause of dinosaurs growing so large. When carbon was 4000 parts per million even the insects were gigantic.”
If you see this meme running around alarmist circles I want full credit.
Genius! Can’t wait for Greta’s next rant!
If they want “climate action” then they ought to stop using fossil fuels – that is the greatest action they could take. It is always supposed to be someone else to do the work, make the sacrifice.
Ya, because I’m a:
“Climate change denying Big Oil-financed Russian AI troll bot”.
I should sell T-shirts and bumper stickers with that logo.
Sadly, most people wouldn’t get it.
Which is why we’re in this climate scam swamp up to our armpits
I thought I would check out this Facebook page.
Lo and behold look at what I found.
https://www.sciencealert.com/computers-are-making-huge-mistakes-because-they-can-t-understand-chaos-scientists-warn
This article warns about the problems inherent in using digital computers to model chaotic systems. The lack of precision in 32 and 64 bit numbers can result in large errors.
The last couple of weeks some very long threads have occurred discussing the uncertainties introduced due to cloud effects in modeling. One of the “solutions” was supposed to be the use of ensembles. This paper shoots that all to hell.
It appears to be another nail in the GCM models.
Sooner or later climate modelers are going to be required to address the large errors and uncertainties in their pet projects.
I still think analog computers might be the way to go
I know there aren’t a lot of people who even know what they are or how they work but they can deal with real world interactions. However, you can’t fool them. You either know how things work or you don’t.
I believe Pat Frank has posted here on WUWT on uncontrollable error propagation in climate models.
I read a few comments on their page, and noticed that more than a few felt that, even though they had PhDs and other degrees, they had no right to “lecture climate scientists on their work.”
I decided to jump in and point out that neither Mann, Hansen, or Schmidt had degrees in “climate science.” They had degrees in mathematics, geology, astronomy, geophysics — but not a meteorology or climatology degrees among them.
I enjoined the readership to feel free to critique the work. They were degreed, educated people too, and “peer reviewed” is not a synonym for “correct.”
I signed off with a telling of the history of plate tectonics, and how peer-reviewed papers were written on both sides for forty years, until finally the facts — not a consensus — won out.
I’ll be interesting to see the response, if I don’t get blocked. I was polite and respectful, though, so it should be good.
Good luck with that…
You will be crucified for your heresy, but you will be remembered.
Saw your post and left a like.
With regards to plate tectonics, it was an amateur geologist who first posed the theory that the land mass of the earth was a bunch of plates that were fluid and mobile. He was ridiculed for it too. His theory was later proven by the US Navy during the cold war after mapping the sea floor, after his death IIRC. There are many examples of amateurs posing theories and then them being proven correct.
Who knows is anyone reads what I write?
An approach to Facebook articles about climate change:
I think my strongest position is that of a climate moderate. Many people attack the strawmen on our right. I avoid quoting or referring anyone too far to the right. Figure out what your sea level rise approach is. A long time ago I look at AR5 and figured under the two middle emission scenarios, it’s 2.3 inches per decade through about 2090. I did not shade this answer in my favor. You can check this yourself. I had to eyeball some graphs. It only takes and hour or so. Also I can call on the authority of the IPCC. Which is usually more than the writer of the article can do. Moderates can carry a big stick.
My position on renewables is about absolute. They are junk. I reference Germany a lot suggesting if they can’t make it work, who can? Lomborg and Shellenberger are good to refer to as they are save the planet types. I don’t think it’s wise to obsess over Mann or anyone else.
And I call out skydragons. And tell them to go away. They are not my allies. Try to be nice.
“Next thing we know, several threads are spiralling into a shouting match, all while drowning out the important climate news we are trying to share with the world.”
How can a consensus of settled science, known far and wide from toddlers to centenarians, be considered “news”? These people are entirely too goosey.
Who’s been naughty?~ctm
4chan