Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
@luckytran@med-mastodon.comStill my favorite segment about why it's a bad idea to participate in bad-faith "debates" about science. They only result in further amplifying disinformation.
"People still think this issue is open to debate, because on TV it is. It's always one person for one person against. When you look at the screen, it's 50/50, which is inherently misleading."
— @iamjohnoliver
@luckytran reminds me of Emily Maitlis’ powerful speech last year after leaving the BBC:
“it might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it. But by the time we went on air, we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn’t.”
@JugglingWithEggs Ah, Emily Maitlis! Being in the US, I just recently discovered her on The News Agents, where she sometimes sounds gleeful about being free of BBC constraints.
...and while I'm on:
Deniers can also regularly be heard trotting out "why should we believe scientists? They moaned on and on about "the Y2K bug" and when those clocks ticked over, no-one died."
Mate. The reason there were so few glitches is that as a planet we'd spend millions of work-hours fixing the problem in advance. I know; I fixed half-a-dozen of them myself. IF ONLY we were in the same position here, doing the right things, at the right time, so that idiots could look back decades later and gloat that "all that hype was for nothing." At least we'd all still be alive. The only downside to that I can see is that it would be quadruply hard to convince them when the next major threat comes along.
Paid @garretguy @JugglingWithEggs @luckytran +1. Every catastrophe prevented by massive collaborative work (y2k, ozone patch layer) becomes proof that catastrophes don't happen and we shouldn't massively work together to prevent them.
@aris @garretguy @JugglingWithEggs @luckytran
Yep! Several recent influenza epidemics that kind of just barely didn't happen, too.
@JugglingWithEggs @luckytran The same is true of climate science, vaccines, 5G and any other contentious subject. Chemtrails, anyone? #chemtrails #5G #vaccine #covid #climate #climatechange
@luckytran @iamjohnoliver Yep. I don't debate creationists for that reason.
@luckytran I also had the incredible experience of working for this guy…it’s so sad to see the BBC rolling back on his landmark line in the sand on debating climate change.
Now in 2023 it’s often the case that they put climate delayers up against those trying to avert climate catastrophe.
https://greenworld.org.uk/article/no-debate-tweet-brought-shift-bbc-climate-change-coverage
@JugglingWithEggs @luckytran ah…just realised the link shows a picture of arch Climate Denier and Brexiteer Nigel Lawson…I certainly didn’t go anywhere near him. No, I worked with the author of the piece, Dr Rupert Read.
I saw this thread and came on to make exactly this comment. I was unfortunate enough to hear Lawson live on Today and was spitting blood by the end. How can it be balance to put the overwhelming majority of scientific thinking, backed by hard evidence, up against the ramblings of a politician (that fact alone enough to discredit him IMO) with no specialist knowledge but a slew of vested interests in maintaining the status quo.
It's hard enough to listen to this stuff. I can't even begin to imagine how hard it is if you're a climate scientist who's dedicated their lives to collecting and analysing the evidence, and trying to persuade the immovable object of political will to DO something about it, only to be constantly told "nah, mate. It's sunspots."
@luckytran Point is taken, and obviously, you have to acknowledge the humor in it. Anyway, I find reasonable a debate being a confrontation of data and arguments, non depending on the number of supporters for any of the sides. Ain't that proper?
Human ignorance and stupidity, in the other hand, it's a really hard to solve problem...
@rival @luckytran
It is nothing short of medically and socially irresponsible to sift through 285 medical practitioners to find the one who doesn't believe in germ theory, and then present their views as equal in means and weight to those who instead think surgeons should wash their hands.
The data, if nothing else, is not being reviewed and considered by the outlets in question, who do not have the resources to do so (nor care to).
It's the drama that gets bums on seats.
If these "debate" shows had any credibility they'd be reporting the scientific consensus. But, they're interested in ratings not informing the viewers. Or if the TV shows have industry backers (e.g., the advertising industry) they're selling ideas to their consumer audience. Mitigating climate change would put many industries out of business.
Similar to the advertising algorithms used on corporately owned social networking sites.
The common denominator is the profit incentive, not the fact (evidence) incentive.
@luckytran @iamjohnoliver
Alt text: John Oliver complains that climate is always presented as one person against one person on TV, implying a 50/50 split, when the actual consensus is over 97%. He then brings 96 additional scientists on the climate side and 2 on the denial side, to illustrate the overwhelming scientific consensus. The debate is a bit unwieldy; we shouldn't be having it at all...
It reminds me of the old adage from my journalism/broadcasting courses.
If you’re a journalist and one person tells you it’s raining and another says it isn’t, it’s not your job to report both sides. Your job is to open a window, see for yourself, and report the truth.
️
I still remember watching this when it aired thinking he’s the only public personality - celebrity or politician - to get that wording right.
EVERY other time other public people tried to quote the “97%” stat, it went something like, “97% of scientists believe…” when the number isn’t about individual scientists. It’s a meta study of thousands of papers. Which, IMO, is far more impactful.
@luckytran @iamjohnoliver i love to see the face of reddit john oliver out here with the science
@chrisisgr8 @luckytran stupid sexy john oliver 
@luckytran @iamjohnoliver "The Medium is the Message"
@luckytran You have nailed it on the head. And it's not only just climate change denial, we do this in the spheres of evolution, cosmology, and a number of other subjects leading us in the science community to be in this constantly frustrating position of trying to quell disinformation while trying to not come across as arrogant know-it-alls(despite the fact that scientists, do in fact, know more than science deniers). A lot of this stuff in my mind boils down to a failed education system, systemic pressures to maintain institutions like fossil capital and in the case of evolution, some religious groups, and the ludicrous idea that climate change deniers and young-earth creationists have out-smarted the "mainstream" or "establishment" scientists that are "out to get you" with their scary atheism and anti-freedom. It's quite terrifying to be quite honest and I have no clue where we need to go as a science community to turn this ship around because as it stands now, we are on a course to (and have arrived at in some sense) ignorance and superstition.
@luckytran Obligatory:
---
Not mine, links to original artist:
https://twitter.com/twisteddoodles
https://ko-fi.com/twisteddoodles
https://www.redbubble.com/people/twisteddoodles/shop/
@jpostma @luckytran Cartoon gets it right. Why elevate the people who willing ignore and twist the historical or scientific evidence to fit their world view? Why do media outlets support this? #CNN — next time you do a show on space travel, will you include a #flatearther for their perspective? #Fox — next time there is a story on the Holocaust, will you include deniers? #climatechange evidence is solid — time for the #deniers to no longer be given a stage.
@luckytran Man, I am just having the discussion about the reality of climate change with a relative of mine over text... it is exhausting. I can't imagine how it feels for the scientists...
Never. Ever. Play whack-a-mole with a #MAGA moron. Unlike the cute critters, they have #AssaultRifles. Never hire them, either.
#SciComm
@luckytran @iamjohnoliver@bird.makeup
It's worth noting that the 3% of papers that didn't conclude AGW was real have subsequently been reviewed as flawed. There are basically no peer reviewed papers that demonstrate AGW isn't real.
If the media was being fair, there would be none of these debates.
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change
@luckytran@med-mastodon.com @iamjohnoliver@bird.makeup
you know when we look back at stupid things people used to do in the past like say Vitorians using dyes derived from lead in food stuffs and wonder "what the fuck were they thinking?" ....
@luckytran
But surely you understand, if the value of your portfolio depends upon the positions of the 3 scientists, you like the one-on-one presentation better?
@luckytran @iamjohnoliver I hadn't seen this before. Glorious.
@luckytran @iamjohnoliver I take issue with Bill Nye and all who make the indefensible claim that any scientific question is "settled." This is just not how science works, and those making such claims should know better. The history of science is littered with ideas that seemed settled at the time but failed to stand up to "debate."
Nye and Co's tactic of shaming those asking questions or finding reason for skepticism is counterproductive at best. At worst, it's a menace to science.
"I can't hear you over the weight of scientific evidence."
@luckytran @iamjohnoliver I think we should debate the existence of climate change deniers, one for and one against. And if they exist, are they naturally-occurring or man-made by fossil fuel companies?