Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

egregiouscodswallop t1_ixqbtha wrote

Remember that when you measure public sentiment or the focus of public discourse by using Twitter, you are measuring robots designed to inflate those numbers and give those results. You are literally falling for the internet's third most obvious trick and it's sad that you can't see it

101

lolwutpear t1_ixsfjtj wrote

> third most obvious trick

Okay, I'll bite, What do you think #1 and #2 are?

I'm guessing a prince from Nigeria, and "posting something vague and/or incorrect to drive engagement".

9

UniversalMomentum t1_ixq2kh0 wrote

I don't see how studying Twitter is real science. you may as well go to the grocery store and study the Tabloid aisle.

78

fractalfalcon OP t1_ixq9b98 wrote

I think the denial of how impactful poorly regulated social media can be is part of the reason we ended up in a lot of the mess of the last ten years. Is Twitter the real world, no, of course not. But it can be remarkably influential in some areas and also remarkably damaging.

55

soztech t1_ixqk2vr wrote

>poorly regulated social media

Because censoreship has always lead to great things!

−45

abaoabao2010 t1_ixqq5rz wrote

It actually has, and always will.

For example, peer review is essentially crowd censorship of shitposts, but specifically by people in the field. That's why papers that you can find are usually more reliable than random twitter posts.

37

GiantRiverSquid t1_ixqqas0 wrote

I don't understand why more people don't just pull up their bootstraps and create their OWN social media platform.

7

Boom-light t1_ixqt2p9 wrote

Because Twitter sways public opinion. Which results in science being de-legitimized for large portions of the population. Which leads to actions that make climate change worse.

30

DryOrganization7429 t1_ixrbc14 wrote

Twitter is also getting much worse with accounts of conspiracy idiots and generally nasty people reinstating

4

exoduas t1_ixqa5ck wrote

Pretty ignorant take. Social media is widely used by a lot of people, businesses, governments, interest groups etc. to communicate. The days of "the internet isn’t real" are over. Its a hugely influential part of society and it should obviously be studied just like other parts. What happens on the internet and twitter is obviously having a direct impact on the world and smugly claiming otherwise wont change that. There are groups who have long realized the potential to influence people over the internet and they are taking full advantage of it. Thinking it doesn’t matter is a big mistake.

29

abaoabao2010 t1_ixqpu34 wrote

People are dumb.

People vote with their wallets.

Studying the behaviors of dumb people is not just real science, it's extremely impactful science.

24

Pirateangel113 t1_ixq8xqj wrote

they are studying how stupidity spreads And twitter just so happens to be where all the village idiots have flocked to.

19

helm t1_ixqkbno wrote

And how did Brexit happen?

8

zazaza89 t1_ixr24s9 wrote

When I was in grad school I did a study which included a quantitative component on Twitter sentiment and an ethnographic component where I actually found tweeps and interviewed them.

The result showed that many of the people tweeting about this particular topic were real, but that in the case I was studying, none of the interactions led to any real world change (I was looking at an anti-corruption campaign by a certain police force. While many people reported corruption via Twitter as instructed, nothing was ever done with their reports).

If I had only looked at Twitter and not gone out into the field, the result would have looked very different. Instead it revealed that this was a clear PR campaign by the police force, not a serious attempt to root out corrupt behavior.

6

Veneck t1_ixqtugt wrote

Twitter is like going to the human zoo, you study the animals

5

Noname_acc t1_ixt7ul3 wrote

A president was literally memed into office 6 years ago.

2

49thDipper t1_ixtty9o wrote

Twitter swings elections. Studying that is very worthwhile.

2

SayNyetToRusnya t1_ixq9js2 wrote

Does "engagement with climate skeptics" include the inevitable plethora of people coming to tell them how utterly stupid and blind they are? Because I bet.

6

fractalfalcon OP t1_ixq9sj9 wrote

The way engagement is measured deliberately avoids that conflation. Engagement is only measured in terms of sharing content rather than commenting on it to (rightly) avoid this issue.

6

ScoobyDerp t1_ixr3g39 wrote

Twitter is a cesspool of misinformation, who cares what anyone on that platform thinks anymore.

6

gerundive t1_ixrkm85 wrote

> Twitter is a cesspool of misinformation

In my experience, having used both extensively over many years, less so than Reddit. YMMV

1

SexyOldHobo t1_ixrduep wrote

The side of climate denial will always have a lot of money behind it. Just about every point of action we make within our economy releases greenhouse gasses, so conversely, we need less economic action. We can do that by consuming less or by having less people. Most products are ultimately mined, with a carbon intensive processing and logistic networks behind them. Asking the people who built globalization and profit at every stage of the global capitalist economy to fix this is preposterous. We need a radically different economy which means we need radical changes which are incapable of coming up from within, and will be difficult and alienating to all kinds of people.

5

Fancy-Respect8729 t1_ixqhfji wrote

There's a disconnect between climate science and the political response. A lot of people are getting pissed at green taxes and greenwashing.

3

boligenic t1_ixr32bl wrote

Twitter is like the 16th social network in popularity. I don't know why what happens there keeps being news.

2

outsidetheparty t1_ixrf12a wrote

How are there still climate skeptics? The effects of climate change are happening. They’re not subtle.

2

Truth_r_dare411 t1_ixrtyqs wrote

There will come a point when the truth prevails regardless of the skepticism and at that point of no return, the skeptics will then claim it to be an act of God instead of taking responsibility. Down the rabbit hole we go again!

2

phoneguyfl t1_ixsc4wz wrote

Seems like the problem here is using Twitter as some type of useful tool. It's a system designed to engage, and the biggest engagement tool in their toolbox is Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

2

AutoModerator t1_ixq0g4r wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

omega__man t1_ixrrt6i wrote

Twitter’s still around?

1

HogsInSpace t1_ixt15sm wrote

I think more people flying in bigger airplanes to meet more frequently to discuss the factors of consideration with our present climate situation will find a solution faster.

1

PelosiGalore t1_ixqy4ni wrote

None. Been down that road too many times. All I’m going to suggest is, once my eyes were opened, you can clearly see it, and there’s no going back. Just like The Matrix.

−2

PelosiGalore t1_ixqxszy wrote

Hmmmm, where did you get that from? Which country has done more to clean up itself and produce energy more efficiently and cleanly than any other on the planet. Hint: I live here.

−6

Jazzlike-Drop23 t1_ixudket wrote

USA is way behind on climate commitments. No way it's done more than any other country on environmental issues. Where did you get this twisted information from?

0

PelosiGalore t1_ixughbu wrote

Ok, Captain Planet. I don’t blame you. You’re the victim of public skule reeducation camp. I’m in the industry, so I think I know a little more about it than you do. In fact, based on your comment, I know I do.

1

Jazzlike-Drop23 t1_ixuhw6s wrote

USA has no claim to be the most environmentally friendly country. That's absurd.

1

Gorman2462 t1_ixq9p99 wrote

There's been a lot of compelling evidence surfacing lately that demonstrates how the climate policies being pursued haven't been clearly thought out and are mostly just reactionary.

1 example, to switch everyone off of petro to electric cars, world wide, would cost 400 trillion dollars just in battery production. That doesn't include massive upgrades to the power grid.

Another item we've been told for decades is that The Great Barrier Reef is dying, being bleached out by sea temperature rise, and this year when measured the reef is the biggest it's been since they started measuring.

None of this proves image change is a hoax, in my lifetime I've seen a pretty dramatic shift in weather at the local and worldwide level. The problem is that the climate movement becomes a new cash cow for investments, government spending, and con men, just like in every other space of our lives.

−8

Detectorbloke t1_ixqhihs wrote

>this year when measured the reef is the biggest it's been since they started measuring.

Wasn't there a mass bleaching event just this year? You make it sound like the bleaching suddenly stopped.

4

Richcranium1972 t1_ixre7rq wrote

The study showed that the reef is its healthiest state in decades. Part of a normal cycle over centuries.

2

Detectorbloke t1_ixregmj wrote

>a normal cycle

Now that's something I haven't heard in my lifetime.

2

Richcranium1972 t1_ixs5130 wrote

I believe it’s actually the 6th version of the reef at present.

0

TickTockPick t1_ixqvf2v wrote

Highest Great Barrier Reef coral cover in 36 years

​

This after being told by scientists that we wouldn't have barrier reefs soon^(tm).

The Great Barrier Reef is at a critical tipping point and could disappear by 2050

​

We really need to tone down the alarmism as it really doesn't help.

−3

RAPanoia t1_ixqxq44 wrote

"While the recovery is undoubtedly good news, AIMS remains cautious about the future as increasingly warmer waters create the potential for further mass bleaching events to occur. A mass bleaching event earlier in 2022 was the fourth recorded in just seven years, and the sixth since 1998."

10

TickTockPick t1_ixr3jt2 wrote

Yep. And news sites need to report that instead of "There could be no more reefs by 2050" bs. The headlines are pure clickbait these days.

−5

bfnrowifn t1_ixrdg82 wrote

One good year doesn’t negate the trend. You can’t look at one instance of a specific event and claim that all other observations and data analysed was wrong.

In the same vein, you can’t say the average temperature isn’t rising if 2022s average temp was lower than the average temp of any previous year when the average temp of every year up till now has been consistently increasing. One data point isn’t enough to draw any meaningful conclusion from.

6

Detectorbloke t1_ixre71q wrote

>being told by scientists

which ones?

But thanks for sharing that article. It does mention the 2022 event I meant quite a lot, but I want aware of such a big recovery. Seems to be a very dynamic system.

2

stu54 t1_ixr5k6z wrote

Yeah, that's cause capitalists control all government policy, so nothing will pass that isn't designed to consolidate their power. That means policies won't be effective at curbing climate disaster. You will not be able to live without the corporations. Voting and protesting will not have any influence on that outcome.

0

vtman7 t1_ixqds8l wrote

I believe in climate change but it’s hard to take COP seriously when you see the pictures of the private jets flying in and gridlocking the nearest airport.

Rules for thee, but not for me.

−12

rlbond86 t1_ixqu2ce wrote

How exactly are the leaders of 100+ countries all supposed to get there? Take the bus?

6

Silkkiuikku t1_ixqzgzp wrote

Why don't they fly with normal airplanes? I don't understand why anyone needs a private jet.

3

Detectorbloke t1_ixqhn3a wrote

Yeah, if the politicians took the metro, climate change would be over.

−3

PelosiGalore t1_ixq49ut wrote

Oh my! Guess you better take it up with the three biggest polluters on the planet; China, India and Russia. Not coincidentally, these three countries did NOT attend the “climate summit” in Egypt.

−16

rlbond86 t1_ixquevx wrote

Hmmm, which country has released the most carbon in history? Hint: you live there

4

gimmedome t1_ixq5j32 wrote

Climate change has happened long before humanity roamed the earth. Scammers want people to be scared so they can propose a solution and get money. Scammers are garbage.

−31

pseudonominom t1_ixq8rxu wrote

Yes, it resulted in mass extinctions, then, too.

This time it’s happening at 10x the pace.

Humans only live ~70 years, so we’re not too good at seeing ourselves boiled in the pot.

15

Sillloc t1_ixq9n1u wrote

It's funny how the article is about science deniers and there's so many here on the sub. Literally all the first comments were from people saying nothing bad will ever happen

14

Detectorbloke t1_ixqhyh3 wrote

I wonder if those are real people with nothing better to do, or computer programs polling certain buzzwords to them post a generic reply. Take this "the climate has changed in the past" argument. It has nothing to do with the article, yet it could be posted under any article on global warming.

Edit: after looking at their other activity I conclude that either someone programmed a horny algorithm, or it's just a pubescent boy.

3

TickTockPick t1_ixqw2vs wrote

>Humans only live ~70 years

That's only due to fossil fuels. Around 120 years ago the global life expectancy was around 32 years old... Cheap energy is a requirement to lift people out of crushing poverty.

−3

wealhtheow t1_ixr9se5 wrote

Fun fact, the biggest contributing factors to increased life expectancy have actually been public health initiatives like sewage management, water treatment, hand washing, and vaccines.

4

Dave10293847 t1_ixrgxwn wrote

You do realize those things take electricity to run and produce right. But I think I understand your overall point of luxuries not being the reason we live a long time.

−1

DreiKatzenVater t1_ixq3jau wrote

The fatalism of the climate change movement doesn’t help people from being skeptical.

2000: the world will end in 10 years!! Repent! 2005: the world will end in 10 years!! Repent! 2010: the world will end in 10 years!! Repent! 2015: the world will end in 10 years!! Repent! 2020: the world will end in 10 years!! Repent!

Meanwhile, the rest of us are all still happily living our lives

−34

pseudonominom t1_ixq94y9 wrote

Imagine a doctor telling you that you’ve got 6 weeks to live.

Then you live two months.

“Cancer schmancer! I knew I didn’t have a deadly, life-ending, murderous cancer.

Sorry that scientists can’t give the certainty that you’d be more comfortable with.

18

PelosiGalore t1_ixq4j9j wrote

It’s a religion for these imbeciles. And it’s obviously such a scam. Brandon stops oil production in the US, then begs the Saudis to produce more. A CLEAR message that it’s NOT about the evils of so called “fossil fuels.”

−44

StrngBrew t1_ixq8xzz wrote

US oil production is at a near all time high.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-monthly-oil-output-climbs-pre-pandemic-highs-2022-10-31/

13

PelosiGalore t1_ixqjf7k wrote

Please. Reuters? Might as well be AP or Yahoo News. Two years ago, the United States was a net exporter of oil, and gas was around 2.30/gal. What’s different? I know…Xi Jing Joe and the cRATS took over. Sorry if you’ve not smart enough to think for yourself and see what’s going on.

−16

Gozillasbday t1_ixqv7j2 wrote

You think Reuters and AP are unreliable news sources?

Ok which news sources do you recommend?

11

PelosiGalore t1_ixqxcfg wrote

Think? No, I KNOW they are. They’re unreliable because they heavily bias left.

−9

Gozillasbday t1_ixqxrkv wrote

You didn't answer my question. Here I'll repeat it for you -

"Ok which news sources do you recommend?"

13

PeterVonwolfentazer t1_ixq9hyt wrote

US Oil companies stopped oil production on thousands and thousands of wells when Covid lockdowns sent prices negative. They’ve not reopened those wells in OH, PA, WV, OK and TX. Those wells are on their land and don’t need any new permits.

When asked several times on CNBC about increasing oil production to help out the US consumer a US oil CEO responded three different times with… “It’s our job to return capital to our investors”.

So you can believe some propaganda by the big oil industry group that gets regurgitated from entertainment outlets calling themselves “news” or you can piece the information together from oil execs and quarterly income statements and see what the real story is. It’s more about greed than politics.

By the way that big oil industry group put out a huge media blitz the day after the war in Ukraine started. How convenient, a war about oil pipes and the second some blood is being spilled and here’s this group saying , lift these restrictions on public lands and “NEW” permits so we can help you. Big oil has millions of acres of public land that they have already locked up that ISN’T being used for oil production yet. Permits and land but not being used. They also have those thousands and thousands of idle wells. Why as a taxpayer would we want to sell them more land and permits at todays depressed prices? Like I said above, it’s really all about greed, and their record profits show that.

11

pseudonominom t1_ixq8ijg wrote

Bro, keep trash like this to the other subs.

4

PelosiGalore t1_ixqjvlu wrote

Brh, the last time I checked, I am just as entitled to my opinion as you are yours. If you disagree with my opinion, you’re welcome to challenge it. Telling me to take my opinion somewhere else makes me want to tell you t kiss my a$$, Broseph Stalin!!!

−6