YouTube's Algorithm is Pushing Climate Misinformation Videos, and Their Creators Are Profiting From It (niemanlab.org) 275
An anonymous reader shares a report: When an ad runs on a YouTube video, the video creator generally keeps 55 percent of the ad revenue, with YouTube getting the other 45 percent. This system's designed to compensate content creators for their work. But when those videos contain false information -- say, about climate change -- it's essentially encouraging the creation of more misinformation content. Meanwhile, the brands advertising on YouTube often have no idea where their ads are running. In a new report published today, the social-activism nonprofit Avaaz calculates the degree to which
YouTube recommends videos with false information about climate change.
After collecting more than 5,000 videos, Avaaz found that 16 percent of the top 100 related videos surfaced by the search term "global warming" contained misinformation. Results were a little better on searches for "climate change" (9 percent) and worse for the more explicitly misinfo-seeking "climate manipulation" (21 percent). Those videos with misinformation had more views and more likes than other videos returned for the same search terms -- by an average of 20 and 90 percent, depending on the search. Avaaz identified 108 different brands running ads on the videos with climate misinformation; ironically enough, about one in five of those ads was from "a green or ethical brand" like Greenpeace or World Wildlife Fund. Many of those and other brands told Avaaz that they were unaware that their ads were running on climate misinformation videos.
After collecting more than 5,000 videos, Avaaz found that 16 percent of the top 100 related videos surfaced by the search term "global warming" contained misinformation. Results were a little better on searches for "climate change" (9 percent) and worse for the more explicitly misinfo-seeking "climate manipulation" (21 percent). Those videos with misinformation had more views and more likes than other videos returned for the same search terms -- by an average of 20 and 90 percent, depending on the search. Avaaz identified 108 different brands running ads on the videos with climate misinformation; ironically enough, about one in five of those ads was from "a green or ethical brand" like Greenpeace or World Wildlife Fund. Many of those and other brands told Avaaz that they were unaware that their ads were running on climate misinformation videos.
So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Decide for yourself. Back up your position with facts.
You can't expect companies (or governments) to censor some speech and not censor other speech reliably or accurately.
Re: (Score:2)
Forcing speech underground where it won't ever get challenged is not a good outcome. As they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Decide for yourself. Back up your position with facts.
This was also a tactic used defend lead fuel, tobacco and still used by anti-vaxxers. However, in regard to climate change if scientists are correct if people decide incorrectly, they could doom the future for all mankind to plague, death, famine and war. If scientists are wrong, we made a sustainable world with cleaner air and water that will enable people to live longer.
You can't expect companies (or governments) to censor some speech and not censor other speech reliably or accurately.
How about when it comes to scientific matters that we go with what the vast majority of scientists have concluded. Also, both companies and governments have a vested interest in mass extinctions not occurring.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course tha ads run on them. (Score:3)
THEY PUT THEM TO RUN ON THEM. they chose the keywords on which they will show them. foolishly they chose keywords that are about climate change.
some bigger brands do the same foolish mistakes where they arrange their ads to be shown on videos talking about them. but for them to say that they didn't know, well they knew what keywords they were putting their videos on.
moreover they target people who are already searching info about climate change. that is a stupid marketing tactic. it's basically the same phenomena where you get advertised shoes because you bought shoes 4 weeks before. it's wasted advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
I was actually surprised that it was just 21%.
Their powers (Score:2, Funny)
It's pretty obvious that they're using their terrible AI manipulating powers they gain for not being vaccinated to push their videos up, instead of having a really shitty opposition that just can't stop sounding like "know-all twats" that try to push a bunch of garbage along with the truth.
Great. (Score:3)
What means Freedom of Speech? (Score:4, Insightful)
I am very cautious about censoring so-called fake news. If you find something blatantly wrong, the proper response is to generate your own content pointing out why the other speech is wrong. The proper response is NOT to say "This is wrong remove it" or "This hurt my feelings remove it". And by the way I have the power to remove and so I will. You may be right this time, but next time someone else will be in power and thus your speech may be deemed wrong.
Youtube seems to be a platform in the town square where anyone can stand and express an idea freely. The add clicks are for the speech opportunity, not the agreement of disagreement with the content. You don't like the content, jump onto the platform and express why and perhaps generate add revenue for your clicks. You don't want to support free speech with your add payments, then don't advertise on a free platform.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What means Freedom of Speech? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want the first amendment to survive you need a culture that values the concept underpinning it. Promoting corporate censorship, deplatforming, and hate speech is a great way to end free speech.
Doesn't add up... (Score:5, Insightful)
After collecting more than 5,000 videos, Avaaz found that 16 percent of the top 100 related videos surfaced by the search term "global warming" contained misinformation.
What does the 5,000 videos mean? Top 100 climate videos and 4,900 cat videos?
Why do you then focus on "the top 100" videos? Should we just ignore the other 4,900 videos you just brought up?
It would help your case if you explained/gave examples of "mis-information" - I suspect that term was chosen because it lowers the bar for inclusion, since if the informed viewer making the assessment believes that Miami will be under 8 feet of water by 2050 and the video describes Miami under 8 feet of water in 2075 or under 5 feet of water in 2050, then it can be labeled "mis-information".
16 videos out of 5,000 is only 0.32%, that's an incredibly small problem
Monitized? (Score:3)
After collecting more than 5,000 videos, Avaaz found that 16 percent of the top 100 related videos surfaced by the search term "global warming" contained misinformation.
How many of the 16 videos are "monetized"? If the issue is advertisers subsidizing spreaders of loosely-defined "mis-information", are we to assume all 16 of the "top 100 related videos" are, in fact, monetized, meaning their creators share in the advertising revenue? The summary draws a connection between two unrelated things, and never actually makes the connection. Yes, youtube has monetized videos, and yes, youtube has videos with "mis-information", but before I get upset about youtube paying creators with videos containing mis-information I want to know how many of them are actually collecting a share of ad revenue.
You lost me at Greenpeace (Score:5, Insightful)
The hyperbole lost me when it said "a green or ethical brand like Greenpeace". Anyone that puts ethical in the same sentence as Greenpeace has a nebulous grip on reality at best. Greenpeace effectively invented the practice of greenwashing. They have led the charge against the cleanest form (nuclear) of green energy we have for decades. They have engaged in and supported eco-terrorism. The have a history of ethical challenges with finances. They've opposed GMO's which can help feed and provide nutrition to millions of needy people in third world countries. Their list of ethical lapses could fill a book.
https://townhall.com/columnist... [townhall.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
http://www.dw.com/en/greenpeac... [dw.com]
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
https://www.theregister.co.uk/... [theregister.co.uk]
https://www.washingtontimes.co... [washingtontimes.com]
https://www.science20.com/cont... [science20.com]
YouTube is also shadow-censoring words now! (Score:2)
Try writing "retard" in a comment. E.g. a reply to some commenter.
Then like or dislike your own comment. You will get an error. Ditto, if you try to edit it.
Reload the page (just pull down on the comment you're replying to, if in the app), and your comment isn't there.
Same thing happens for many other words. Wouldn't be surprised of it is more than just words the Catholibans or SJWs (that dominate Google/US culture) declared "bad".
(The rest of the world doesn't care about YouTube's personal local "moral" st
Re: (Score:2)
They announced that they would do that, and we literally discussed it here on slashdot. Too bad you were asleep that day.
Is google's YouTube destroying the Earth? (Score:2)
YT are doing *something* (Score:3)
For me, that kind of works, it's a sensible compromise.
Our planet only has 10 years left! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop the hyperbole
You actually wrote that after what you just said.
"Non-profit" (Score:2)
Avaaz, the "non-profit" who put out this "study" reported $5 million in salaries in 2017 for 58 employees. The CEO is paid $250k and the other administrators make around $150k. I haven't found any filings more recent than 2017. Non-profits are nice work if you can get it.
https://projects.propublica.or... [propublica.org]
Re:What "misinformation"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, if you disagree with something because it's misinformation then it's still misinformation. Disagreement and misinformation are two tangential things. You don't get to declare misinformation as accurate by pretending someone is merely disagreeing. It's misinformation when it's demonstrably wrong but someone is persisting in trying to pretend it's a legitimate point, like, basically the entirety of denialists arguments.
What you really mean is that you're one of those that regularly supports this misinformation here on Slashdot and you think that if you create enough "legitimate controversy" by pretending this is just an attempt to censor, and shut down debate, or whatever snowflake like whining you engage in to justify your spreading of outright falsehoods then you'll be able to get away with continuing to spread such misinformation.
We know your game, it no longer works, the population are wising up to it, so suck it up. The amount of dumb people who still fall for it is declining by the day, even here on Slashdot, soon it'll just be people like you and SuperKendall left as the dumbest two people on Slashdot continuing to engage in it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is much better to just blindly follow press releases and "social activisim nonprofits" like "Avaaz".
Re: (Score:3)
I don't read Fox News and and I not a climate denier. I know climate change exists. Amazingly some people do not follow some orthodoxy and still question the motives of organizations that push their narratives. You should try it sometime. It requires some thought though.
Re: (Score:2)
oh you _are_ funny
Re: (Score:3)
It's fully possible climate change is both real and being used by certain factions to enrich themselves in age-old fashions by threatening massive command and control, then backing off some in exchange for money.
Oh, not your country. I mean all those other ones with corrupt politicians.
Re:What "misinformation"? (Score:4, Informative)
It's fully possible climate change is both real and being used by certain factions to enrich themselves in age-old fashions by threatening massive command and control, then backing off some in exchange for money.
True, but coming up with a list of people who fund climate change denial, along with dates and dollar amounts is easy. You go to google and type "climate change denial funding". The dollar amounts are large and easy to follow, there's even "Top 10" lists, etc.
Coming up with a similar list of people who profit from being pro-climate change isn't so easy. Most researchers have the opposite problem - no funding at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Bull. Just search for major carbon offset players. Don't even need a search machine to put Al Gore on the list.
Re: (Score:3)
Coming up with a similar list of people who profit from being pro-climate change isn't so easy. Most researchers have the opposite problem - no funding at all.
Really? They seem to put out a lot of reports on climate change for a group of researchers with no funding.
So no US govt agencies fund any climate studies? That's amazing. Surely Al Gore is funding some, right? How about Tom Steyer, surely he supports climate studies?
So all those studies they refer to in the latest IPCC report from the UN were all self-funded? Amazing.
Re:What "misinformation"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What "misinformation"? (Score:5, Informative)
A rational discussion is the last thing either side wants now that this specific issue has turned into a political debate.
When the issue becomes political, rational thinking and debate is of necessity thrown out the window, baby, bathwater and all. It quickly degenerates into a quest for power where facts, logic and statistics are as flexible as over cooked spaghetti and each side's confirmation bias ravenously seeks any means to justify their opinion, be it misstated facts, misleading statistics, faulty logic or out right lies. It's about the quest for power and the ends justify the means.
Re: (Score:2)
When the issue becomes political, rational thinking and debate is of necessity thrown out the window,
What happens is the irrational become irrelevant. Eventually, there will be a consensus of people who can mentally function, and that will be the determinant of what gets done. You can keep denying reality, but eventually reality will bite you in the ass.
Re: (Score:2)
A rational discussion is the last thing either side wants now that this specific issue has turned into a political debate.
No, I'm pretty sure it's only the political left that can't be bothered with logic.
Um... I don't agree with the left on this topic, but they are certainly not cornering the market on crazy talk here. I believe they are not thinking clearly about what their proposed solutions will do to the political and economic realities of the world's system, but I've heard some pretty crazy stuff coming from the right too.
IMHO, the reality is that there isn't much we can reasonably do about GW without making massive structural changes to the world's economies which would end up with the starvation an
Re: (Score:3)
In my mind, all we can reasonably do is prepare to deal with the consequences the evidence says are coming in the short term.
No, the most reasonable thing to do is to attempt to minimize economic damage. Granted, doing this perfectly would require a fully-functioning crystal ball, but we shouldn't let perfection be the enemy of good.
Specifically, we should attempt to project, as best we can, the long-term economic costs of climate change, including the construction of seawalls and other defenses, the relocation of populations and reconstruction of cities in different locations, the cost of climate change-induced warfare (Syria
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm pretty sure it's only the political left that can't be bothered with logic.
I am utterly unable to tell whether this comment is intended to be sincere or sarcastic.
In either case, though, somebody should moderate it flamebait -1.
Re:What "misinformation"? (Score:4, Funny)
The term "denier" exists to infer the holocaust and subconsciously equate those who distrust the global warming religion with Nazis. It's evil, the sole purpose of which is to stifle or silence debate altogether.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What "misinformation"? (Score:5, Informative)
For most people sex and gender is the same.
No argument there.
Especially if they are not english speakers or non native english speakers.
Now that's just patently false. The concept of gender was a grammatical concept (masculine, feminine) that became a synonym for biological sex in English around the 15th century. Gender remains a grammatical concept in latin-based and germanic languages. When I was learning spanish decades ago, the concept of using feminine genders for words describing effeminate males wasn't strange. It was rude- particularly given the intent, but still "gender" was not strictly tied to "sex".
But words evolve, and the word gender has evolved from having nothing to do with biological sex, to becoming a synonym, to becoming related to, to becoming less related to. These days, it's back to the previous concept (masculine, feminine) but related to people, not just grammar.
Re:What "misinformation"? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm just going to start out, I don't agree with your position on climate change, but I'm with you on a particular point about discussions but only to a degree. If you need TL;DR, head for the last paragraph then. Sorry my comment became a book.
Instead of flinging insults maybe it's time to have a rational discussion.
Well there's degrees of rational here. Let me attempt to describe it. Let's say you and some friends go to a fancy restaurant with one of those big shot cooks that's been doing the whole high quality restaurant thing for the last three or four decades. One of your friends indicates that they're going to take a peek into the kitchen see how things are ran. As said friend walks into the kitchen against all your protest, they begin to indicate to the cook on duty that he's using too much cream, not enough cheese, wrong kind of cooking wine, etc.
Now your friend isn't a complete dolt when it comes to the kitchen, he's been known to make some alright dishes. Veggies are not usually consistent, his flavor pairings are "interesting" to say the least, he's a bit heavy on the salt, and so on. But he's not completely out of his element.
The cook looks at your friend, asks what his restaurant is called. Your friend indicates he has none, cook tells him to get the flip out of his kitchen.
Now yes, the cook is being pretty brash, but your friend, even though he's got a bit of skill in the domain, has literally no right to be in the cook's kitchen. I don't think any of us would disagree with this.
The thing is that many of the minds who have been working on climate models have been working in the domain for the last three or four decades. When weather guy Steve, Congressman Oil Well McMonney, or Armchair Googler acolyte extraordinaire get up and say "I don't believe climate change" no one is saying you need to shut it down kiddo. You can definitely go home and spout all you want to your friends and family. What you cannot do is expect to be given a fair share of scientific journal publication time. You're outside your domain. Everyone has a right to free speech, no denying that, what you do not have is the right to have your speech have value. That's the thing when someone indicates denialist, they're indicating that your speech has zero value. You can say what you want, it just is meaningless, but you can totally say whatever it is that you like.
Now for some folk, that hurts their feelings. And I can totally understand that. Shit go watch the movie "Whiplash", it's like an hour and a half of just this thing and attempts to indicate how this is a "bad/good/but really bad/but sometimes good" kind of thing. So you can say, "I don't believe in climate change, here's why" and people who actually do this for a living can label you a denailist, it's their right to free speech just as much as the original comment of "I don't believe..." is your right to free speech. It's a two way street when it comes to free speech.
just because they don't buy what's being sold falls into that category
Let me tell you something, no one has to buy your shit. That's life. Science included. Science isn't an orgy of free thinkers just tossing random shit on the wall and seeing what sticks. If you aren't ready for the incredibly steep climb up the hill to prove your point, then you don't have a point. For some reason, people are under the impression that "facts are facts" and so if random yahoo over here has something based in fact, that they should get a microphone at the next Nobel presentation. That's not how it happens. Want a story to back that? Go check Faraday's story. He absolutely had to work everyday uphill in the slog and ultimately his ideas of magnetism and electricity required Maxwell to finally articulate into something that worked with the scientific model. Faraday was incredibly important to the understanding of that, but everyday he dealt with the whole point of never having had a formal
Re:What "misinformation"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead of flinging insults maybe it's time to have a rational discussion.
Apparently you've never publicly argued with a climate change denier. You can point to specific studies, reveal its fraud, and discount those specific studies, but you can't have a rational discussion with someone who chooses to believe what they want over objective facts (science).
Every time I have an argument with a climate denier, they always start by claiming that they are skeptics, not deniers, but when I ask them if they've ever read any of the science laying out the evidence for how we know anthropogenic gasses cause warming: no, they haven't. 100% of their information is what they read on denialist websites.
If their skepticism is one sided -- believing uncritically anything that the deniers say, and never reading anything the science says-- they are not actually skeptics.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody denies the climate changes. It's always changed. Part of the problem is the totalitarian tactic of labeling people who disagree with the causes as "deniers" to suggest they are aligned with Nazis and holocaust deniers. Those zealots don't want any discussion.
A holocaust denier is not by definition a nazi. A holocaust denier is someone who, in spite of tons of evidence, denies a thing that has happened, without stating an opposite consistent believable theory (except for some crazy conspiracy theories who are taken for granted without any critical thinking)..
A climate denier is someone who, in spite of tons of scientific evidence, denies a thing that is happening, without stating an opposite believable theory. In this case, the warming is real, the CO2 pollut
Re:What "misinformation"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What "misinformation"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Complaining about being labelled as "misinformation", though the statements are blatantly false, is propaganda.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Question: how does "Avaaz" know the information is false? It is funny how people always believe press releases. Who is "Avaaz" and how are they funded? They ain't working for free.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:What "misinformation"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet you have no interest in asking them to learn more. You just blindly accept what they are saying is true. I KNOW who these types of "nonprofits" are. They are hired to push a narrative. They are all getting funded. Avvaz is just moveon.org under a different name, funded by Soros. Another sham.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What "misinformation"? (Score:5, Informative)
Avaaz was funded by Res Publica which is Soros. Same guys as moveon.org. You can Google it yourself. My point is NO ONE IS DOING THIS FOR FREE. Everyone has a motive. And no, I am not a climate denier, but this is just your typical BS that Soros pushes.
Re: (Score:2)
So, then, who's paying you?
Re: (Score:2)
Funding [Re:What "misinformation"?] (Score:4, Insightful)
Avaaz was funded by Res Publica which is Soros. Same guys as moveon.org. You can Google it yourself. My point is NO ONE IS DOING THIS FOR FREE. Everyone has a motive. And no, I am not a climate denier, but this is just your typical BS that Soros pushes.
I will briefly point out that the Koch brothers, who are funding climate denial, have a wealth of a hundred billion dollars, roughly twelve times that of Soros. They are the second wealthiest family in America.
If you're looking for "who's funding misinformation", Soros is a minor player.
Re:What "misinformation"? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is still a part of free speech.
Re:What "misinformation"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Even if it is misinformation....
It is still a part of free speech.
Yes, uploading it would be an act of free speech. Interestingly, censoring them would be an act of free speech by YouTube.
Re:What "misinformation"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, censoring it by YouTube makes them more and more responsible for the content they do allow. Unfortunately that makes them liable for ANY and ALL content they allow instead of where they are now.
Yes this is somewhat of a slippery slope for operators like YouTube, but at some point, if the curate their site content too much and exercise too much editorial control, they lose their legal protections from copyright liability and defamation lawsuits. Where is that legal line crossed? Hard to know given it's not been tested in court yet, but there is a line there somewhere....
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it is misinformation....
It is still a part of free speech.
Yes, uploading it would be an act of free speech. Interestingly, censoring them would be an act of free speech by YouTube.
That turns out not to be the case. Free speech is a type of speech. Censoring speech (like bribing politicians) is not speech of any kind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It only becomes a problem when one side wishes to silence the other. That's not free speech.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't an issue of free speech, it is an issue of a feedback loop between advertisers and a system that decides which speech you are shown.
Exactly!
The Youtube algorithms prioritize outrage over information.
Re:What "misinformation"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if it is misinformation....
It is still a part of free speech.
Precisely.
There's some fine lines that can be crossed here though. There is no law against being mistaken. There are laws against fraud. Telling a story is not illegal, that's entertainment. People telling fanciful stories about global warming is merely entertaining and may not be all that persuasive. Lot's of people listen to idiots to laugh at them, and pay them to keep talking.
This is one thing that bothers me, the "de-platforming" of certain views. People have a right to speak. It's true that a private entity is not required to host views they don't like. If YouTube wants this kind of control then they need to make this clear up front. That can get them in legal trouble later though, there's legal protections for what's called a "common carrier". These go away with a "publisher", someone that maintains some editorial control of the content.
An example of the distinction. A "common carrier" would be like a print house where someone sends a PDF file, orders for copies of the PDF as books, and a check, and the print house just sends them the books. The print house is not going to be liable for any content because they will not refuse any business based on the content of the books. A publisher will be someone that seeks out authors, aids in the editing, and then takes part in the advertising of the books. Because they contributed to the content, made an effort to choose what kind of content appeared in the books, then they become liable if the books contain something defamatory or misleading.
It appears that YouTube's algorithms are set to maximize revenue, not maximize the truth. If they decide to maximize the truth then they can lose the protections of a common carrier. If they are dishonest about how they select content then they can get in trouble for more simple matters of breach of contract.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If something is provable false, it's misinformation. Calling it thus is correctly labelling it.
Complaining about being labelled as "misinformation", though the statements are blatantly false, is propaganda.
This Copernicus guy is providing misinformation that is provably wrong based on our scriptures. It denies our God-proven place in the centre of the universe. We need to suppress his (correctly labelled) misinformation. And this Galileo fellow with his telescope thing is just as bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If something is provable false, it's misinformation. Calling it thus is correctly labelling it.
Complaining about being labelled as "misinformation", though the statements are blatantly false, is propaganda.
If something is actually true, then calling it 'misinformation' is misinformation.
Now, if you are ready to ask yourself 'how do we ever know what is true?', you are ready to BEGIN studying philosophy.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if you are ready to ask yourself 'how do we ever know what is true?', you are ready to BEGIN studying philosophy.
No, that's the end of philosophy - the point at which it becomes useless. The beginning of philosophy is "how do you live a good life?". Once you're done with that (it's okay, we'll wait) you can piss the rest of your time away on "How do I know that you are real?" bullshit that narcissistic idiots (*paging Mr Wittgenstein*) think is philosophy if you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What "misinformation"? (Score:3)
There is a lot of good research on showing causation in general. My favorite is you have causation if you can choose to do the cause to get the effect. For greenhouse gases, you can show how certain gases will absorb heat more, like the refrigerant in your AC. After absorbing heat, it gets compressed outside to release heat, then it cycles back and is decompressed to cool down, ready to quickly soak up more heat. The refrigerants demonstrably do this at high rates, which is why they are chosen: they are sup
Re: (Score:2)
We cannot tell whether it is because of warming/cooling that CO2 levels change or it is those changes that cause temperature variance. For some reason science isn't being applied evenly when it comes to climate change.
Sure science is being applied! While we don't know all of the nitty gritty details, much of what you're describing is called "positive feedback" and can be commonly observed when you bring a microphone too close to an amplified speaker it is feeding. The sound comes out of speaker, goes back into the microphone, gets amplified and sent out the speaker, etc. You get a very loud squeal from the feedback.
Same thing with CO2 and temperature. See the NOAA's Paleoclimatology page for good information on how compl
Re: (Score:3)
Except what they are calling misinformation is someone saying correlation does not equal causation. Something of a battle cry at /. While there is currently no scientific way to prove CO2 levels cause warming/cooling
You seem to have missed some pretty basic scientific experiments at uni. It's very easy to show that CO causes warming.
Re: (Score:2)
You're disagreeing with the consensus of the world's scientists? What I don't agree with trotting out a hysterical teenager to push your message.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Your first link is paywalled. It's actually a commentary piece from a conservative think tank. The NASA scientist cited in the article (Roy Spencer) believes climate change isn't real because god won't allow it to happen. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The links you posted don't deal with any actual data. NASA seems to agree https://climate.nasa.gov/scien... [nasa.gov] Are you saying they are incorrect as well?
Re: (Score:2)
The teenager is acting of her own accord. Maybe you were dumb as a box of rocks as a teenager, and incapable of acting on your own volition, but that's not how it is for everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
Right, there is no one behind the scenes at all.
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, there ARE scientists who do NOT agree with the consensus and have questions which are not easily answered by the consensus and have largely been ignored in the media coverage of this issue.
Also understand that this whole debate is now clouded and tainted with the political debate the sprang up around it. Politics has polluted the facts and
Re: (Score:2)
If it relies on consensus, it's not science.
If it's science, then it does not rely on consensus.
Re: (Score:2)
A consensus based on data.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Climate change deniers are on a level with flat earthers -- their arguments are misunderstandings or unprincipled skepticism because certain facts threaten their political identity.
When did you become telepathic, and how does it feel to experience other people's thoughts and feelings directly - and understand intuitively when they are right and when they are wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What "misinformation"? (Score:2)
The philosopher is in love with truth, that is, not with the changing world of sensation, which is the object of opinion, but with the unchanging reality which is the object of knowledge. (Plato)
Something measurable will happen in the physical world with temperatures. If you say something else will happen, that is misinformation. If you say warm temperatures are nicer than cold, or Pepsi is better than Coke that is your opinion and you are entitled to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Something measurable will happen in the physical world with temperatures. If you say something else will happen, that is misinformation.
Do you understand that the word "will", in this context, denotes something about the future?
And do you realise that the future is that part of the universe about which we can know aboslutely nothing at all?
You may think that past trends will continue, and thus fancy that you can predict the future. But no one can predict the future.
Tell me how much global temperature will increase in the next 20 years - how do you know that the Earth will not be hit by an asteroid and turn into a glowing ball of molten rock
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you disagree with someone does not make it "misinformation".
You are correct. It's when reality disagrees with someone that makes it misinformation. E.g. telling people they can fly if they only jumped off a roof.
Climate change denial is misinformation and even more dangerous than convincing people to jump off a rooftop because it drags everyone else down with their ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you disagree with someone does not make it "misinformation". Attaching such labels is the real propaganda.
"So, basically you're upset that scammers are profiting off of your scam".
We need to put a stop to this idea (Score:2, Insightful)
It is time to just start saying "You're wrong, and either crazy or taking advantage of crazies, stop it. If you're crazy seek help. If you're not crazy stop being a bastard.".
If you have bad or defective products in a market place you remove them. You do it carefully, in full view and under strict checks and balances, but here's the rub: You still do it. You wouldn't let folks sell tainted meat and you shouldn
Re: (Score:3)
You wouldn't let folks sell tainted meat and you shouldn't let them peddle this crap for profit.
How many incorrect statements do I have to spot in "An Inconvienient Truth" before I can stop the movie being shown in classrooms, the book to be taken out of libraries and book stores and force Al Gore to cease and desist?
A British judge found 9 errors in a 2007 court case, is that enough to force Gore to stop "(peddling) this crap for profit"?
Link - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne... [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
So according to their study, only 16% of the top 100 videos agreed with half the country on a controversial issue? And then they're surprised that those 16% got more likes than the likes from the other half of the country who agreed with the 84% of videos? If half of the viewers agree with only 16% of the videos... that's an indication that whatever moderation system or that the source for the videos is biased compared to the base population. It's not a reason to view with alarm that less videos got more li
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Debate? Discussion? This is the 21st Century, the public doesn't do that any more. If it's not an echo chamber they won't listen to it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
worst... shitposting... evaaaaaaaaaar!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. When they're debated by non-experts treating data as opinion and opinion as data, who cares if they hold up in that environment? It's irrelevant.
2. More cognitive dreck. Carbon taxes are not vandalism. Divestment from fossil fuels is not violence.
3. Yes, greed persuades. This is why government policy tweaks the profitability of desirable things and taxes the undesirable.
Re: (Score:2)
Think more; strawman less.
Whatever. There's no strawmen here.
The "ideas" have held up, that's why scientists overwhelmingly support the conclusions of climate science.
Climate scientists support climate science? Um, of course they do.
1. When they're debated by non-experts treating data as opinion and opinion as data, who cares if they hold up in that environment? It's irrelevant.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
2. More cognitive dreck. Carbon taxes are not vandalism. Divestment from fossil fuels is not violence.
I didn't say they were. What was that about strawmen?
3. Yes, greed persuades. This is why government policy tweaks the profitability of desirable things and taxes the undesirable. So I see you're endorsing carbon taxes, this is good.
Don't put words in my mouth. I will not support carbon taxes. Any attempt to impose carbon taxes will likely end in a clearing out of Congress in the next election. How do I know this? I've seen it happen before.
4. Survival also persuades. You want the riches of civilization, you need to have civilization persist. Without appropriate action, all those things you feel entitled to will be taken from you not by some bogeyman government, but by nature.
Yes, survival persuades. Telling people in Africa, India, China, and Russia that they can't burn
Re: (Score:2)
I will not support carbon taxes. Any attempt to impose carbon taxes will likely end in a clearing out of Congress in the next election. How do I know this? I've seen it happen before.
Uh, okay, sure. It's up and working elsewhere in the civilized world and works better than anything else.
Yes, survival persuades. Telling people in Africa, India, China, and Russia that they can't burn the coal they mine for heating and cooking if the alternative is reliance on windmills and solar panels they have to import, cannot be relied upon for power at all times, and cost more. The plans of these so called "climate experts" that think we can power the world with wind and solar power are not that persuasive. It takes only a cloudy and calm day before they start burning coal.
Give them options that will keep the lights on tonight. If they can't have light and heat tonight then there is no tomorrow to care about.
It's gotta be phased out, not cancelled overnight. That's what markets and the carbon taxes are for, pushing with an invisible hand on all countries.
Finally you start making some sense. Carbon taxes simply will not happen. Solar power is a money pit and should not be relied upon for grid power. Wind, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear are all good ideas.
If your plan requires carbon taxes then not only are you doing it wrong but it could result in all your other plans going down with it. Don't do it. It will only get the people that imposed the tax voted out of office.
"Simply will not happen" sounds like something you'll have to recant as soon as it happens.
I see that you're a pragmatist. That's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
except that the religious cults have no connection to reality
Not really. They are a good way to hand down moral and basic common sense principles to an illiterate and uneducated public. Pork is bad. Shellfish can be bad. Dogs are dirty*. Back in the old days, you couldn't hand down such rules with no explanation. And often the village wise men didn't actually have an explaination. They just went off of observation and handed down knowledge. So the ruling classes made up an all powerful, all seeing entity who would smite you should you commit some transgression. And t
Re: (Score:2)
I can't point to a specific article this duplicates (my complete lack of trying could be the reason for that), but haven't we endlessly discussed, possibly in relation to climate change or maybe other topics, that YT advertisers do in fact have some control over what types of videos their ads are shown in conjunction with?
Sure, but should they really have to sit down, think of every type of video that could possibly exist, then try to make a list that's easy/clear enough for Youtube to use?
It also assumes people won't lie about the type of content they produce. Even without lying they could easily put tags saying "climate change evidence" then Youtube will have to watch them all and figure out if it's misinformation or not.