Phys.org Article: "Meteorologists targeted in climate misinfo surge"

[John Robinson]

In an article published today, Phys.org discusses growing threats, insults, and a general growth in outrage against meteorologists because of unhappiness over climate change coverage. One person quoted in the article asserts that, now that all the arguments over covid-19 have died down, much of the displeasure has been shifted to debates and displeasure over the coverage of climate change. Examples from Spain, Australia, and France are cited.

Meteorologists targeted in climate misinfo surge (phys.org)

Note that the article does not differentiate between meteorologists and climatologists.

Let's face it: With the rise in social media, anyone can post any outrageous thing that they wish, no matter how inaccurate it is, and convince large numbers of people to believe it. I happen to be a moderator for someone who streams on various platforms, all of which allow public comments, and it's unbelievable the nonsense that some people will post. Fortunately, the site owner's policy is that moderators will mute/timeout or ban anyone who intentionally posts false information.

 

[Mike Smith]

With the rise in social media, anyone can post any outrageous thing that they wish, no matter how inaccurate it is, and convince large numbers of people to believe it. I happen to be a moderator for someone who streams on various platforms, all of which allow public comments, and it's unbelievable the nonsense that some people will post. Fortunately, the site owner's policy is that moderators will mute/timeout or ban anyone who intentionally posts false information.

John, we respectfully disagree on this topic. The above is called, "free speech." The solution is more speech. Write rebuttals, post in the comments section, et cetera.

Free speech is only free speech when we defend speech we do not like.

 

[Jeff Lieberman]

John, we respectfully disagree on this topic. The above is called, "free speech."

100% wrong. That is NOT called "free speech." The free speech guarantee of the 1st Amendment means that we're free to express ideas and opinions without fear of interference or retaliation by the government. Even that right isn't unlimited (e.g., spreading false information that harms the reputation of another constitutes defamation), and it doesn't apply to private forums, which have every right to moderate posts and mute/timeout or ban anyone who violates the site's guidelines, which can include posting false information.

Note, too, that John wasn't referring to removing posts that simply reflected a difference in opinions. He was clear that the site's actions were directed at people who posted false information. If you'd like to start a private forum in which people are free to spew any ludicrous, dangerous, fact-free garbage they want under the guise of "free speech," that's your right. (I suggest reading up on Nazi propaganda and the Holocaust before you start your "free speech" forum.) But other private forums are also within their rights to take a more responsible approach.

 

[Mike Smith]

100% wrong. That is NOT called "free speech." The free speech guarantee of the 1st Amendment means that we're free to express ideas and opinions without fear of interference or retaliation by the government. Even that right isn't unlimited (e.g., spreading false information that harms the reputation of another constitutes defamation), and it doesn't apply to private forums, which have every right to moderate posts and mute/timeout or ban anyone who violates the site's guidelines, which can include posting false information.

Note, too, that John wasn't referring to removing posts that simply reflected a difference in opinions. He was clear that the site's actions were directed at people who posted false information. If you'd like to start a private forum in which people are free to spew any ludicrous, dangerous, fact-free garbage they want under the guise of "free speech," that's your right. (I suggest reading up on Nazi propaganda and the Holocaust before you start your "free speech" forum.) But other private forums are also within their rights to take a more responsible approach

I didn't mention the First Amendment anywhere in my posting. "Free speech" is a well-established part and unique aspect of American culture. As George Washington said, "Without free speech, there are no other freedoms."

Under your paradigm, just two years ago, someone who posted, "Hey wait, I don't think the COVID vaccine is effective. It certainly doesn't prevent the spread because everyone in my home got it," would have had that post removed due to "false information" under the system you propose. Except now, we know the vaccine didn't prevent the spread.

What were the 'facts' two years ago today? Dr. Fauci said on PBS Newshour with Judy Woodruff,
And if you look at the severity effects of the data that we just examined today, that, in the vaccine group, there were essentially no hospitalizations or deaths, so it protected pretty well against severe disease, which is good news. "No hospitalizations."

In September, 2021, after being a huge proponent of the vaccine, I wrote this piece: COVID Vaccines: Something SEEMS Terribly Off
You would have removed it, even though the stated concerns have turned out to be valid. People who were fully vaccinated were being hospitalized in droves.

One of the reasons America became the powerhouse nation it was during the 20th Century was because of the free-flow of ideas. As our freedoms have dwindled (America has gone from #1 to #15 in a short period of time, see: https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2021 ), our economy has deteriorated and economic inequity has mushroomed. The United States' entire way of life is predicated on free speech. Now, big government + big tech has created a giant enterprise around censorship of our speech. Matt Tabbi posted a diagram yesterday.

The cure for what someone believes is false speech? Except for defamation and a few other very narrow exceptions, more speech.

 

[John Robinson]

In my original post, I wanted to avoid going on at length about what constitutes false information. But since the topic has been raised, I will cite specific examples, all of which occurred. First, I should mention that the streamer (site owner), for whom I moderate, goes to breaking news scenes and films them for sales to the TV stations in the city. (None of these stations have their staff photographers on duty at night.)

The streamer responds to the site of a shooting. One person is deceased. As is often the case, other people join the stream later and begin asking "what happened?" Several people post that seven people have been killed. This is provably FALSE. Posting such misinformation is not allowed.

From two nights ago, the streamer goes to the scene of a fatal auto/pedestrian accident. Inevitably, someone joins late and asks "what happened?" Someone replies "another shooting." This is provably FALSE.

When fires are filmed, it is fairly common for someone to post "[name] started this fire." For obvious reasons this is not allowed. In a couple of cases, the accusation was that the streamer started the fire so he could film it. Clearly and provably FALSE since we have been watching the streamer continuously for several hours and he has not been in the area previously.

Depending on the platform being used for streaming, there may be many younger people in the viewing audience. You'd be amazed how gullible these young people are. As the streamer waits for calls to go film, he often parks in the same spot. In this location, lights from inside the car and headlights from approaching vehicles very often create small reflections on the windshield that appear to be in the sky. We clearly know the cause of these lights, but in approximately 90% of the streams, viewers will talk about "those UFOs in the sky." The streamer finally got so sick of this, he decreed that no more UFO identifications would be allowed.

(I will grant that some of these troublesome posters may be trolls that are just out to cause a stir. All the more reason not to allow their comments.)

Finally, to prevent arguments on topics that are divisive and clearly tend more toward opinion than facts, posts about politics and religion are prohibited altogether. Those subjects are not the purpose of the site, and for people who wish to deal with those topics, there are plenty of other sites that deal with those matters.

 

[Mike Smith]

John,

Thanks for the clarification.

When I was writing my book, Warnings, I went back and reviewed the news coverage of the 1985 crash of Delta 191 at DFW. For about 3-4 days all of them reported the cause was "lightning." It wasn't reported as opinion, it was reported as fact. Of course, the cause was the crew flying into a thunderstorm (by itself a no-no per FAA and Delta regs) that contained a downburst. The plane wasn't even struck by lightning.

Before the 2020 election, the entire MSM completely embargoed the story about Hunter Biden's laptop because it was "Russian disinformation." Of course, we now know the "disinformation" narrative was false -- the laptop story was absolutely true.

The people, including President Trump, who said a COVID vaccine was "imminent" were given very minor coverage...and, the creation of the vaccine was announced by the FDA + Pfizer the day after the election.

This is the terrible danger of censorship, especially in scientific-type stories. J-School graduates (99.99% don't like math and science and are terrible with those topics).

A democracy can only work with an honest, accurate and bipartisan media. As indicated by the diagram above, there is a huge censorship regime in the US and it is very dangerous.

 

[Jeff Wright]

One thing I noticed in phys.org was a vaccine article that was taken down after a day…fortunately other sources kept it:

New research reveals possible COVID vaccine blood clot connection

A new Australian study led by SAHMRI and Flinders University has uncovered fundamental differences in how the AstraZeneca and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines impact th

www.newswise.com

Of course…nothing generates retractions like medical stories…every person a different soup of chemicals…but no explanation was given…sadly this led to suspicion in other fields. Peer review means you are supposed to try to poke holes in things.

Spider researcher Jonathan Pruitt faked data in multiple papers, university finds

Jonathan Pruitt An investigation at McMaster University found that Jonathan Pruitt, a behavioral ecologist by training who has had 15 papers retracted in the last three years, “engaged in fabricati…

retractionwatch.com

Jerry Coyne…is learning how that is sometimes frowned upon the hard way.

That having been said…folks at CATO and elsewhere acted as is the min. wage going from 3.35 to 5.15 was going to shutter every small business in America…so I don’t always buy into them either.

 

[Jeff Lieberman]

I didn't mention the First Amendment anywhere in my posting. "Free speech" is a well-established part and unique aspect of American culture.

"Freedom of speech" IS the 1st Amendment. Nothing more; nothing less. Without the 1st Amendment, "freedom of speech" is just a frilly phrase. Your ability to express your views, no matter how misinformed, and even to criticize the government without fear of arrest (or worse) -- an awesome right that most of the world would kill to have -- has NEVER meant that I or anyone else is obligated to listen to you or give you a soapbox to stand on. We have rights, too. That's how it works in a free society, whether you like it or not.

 

[Mike Smith]

has NEVER meant that I or anyone else is obligated to listen to you or give you a soapbox to stand on. We have rights, too. That's how it works in a free society, whether you like it or not.

Having written multiple paragraphs in favor of free speech, I have no idea what you are talking about, so let's leave it at that.

 

[Mike Smith]

Dr. Ryan Maue has commented on the topic of this thread. I agree with him 100%.

Note: Ryan added one more to the change so I have added it to this comment.

 

[Todd Lemery]

Very interesting discussion. It seems pretty obvious to want to censor something that is “provably false”. Unfortunately, there’s been many times in our past where people have been ridiculed and worse for going against known “facts”, such as Ignaz SemmelWei’s, who in 1850 said doctors should wash their hands before surgery so they didn’t infect their patients.
Many things are presented as facts that are not true. Eventually the truth comes out. Unfortunately with today’s instant news that will be old news in five minutes, by the time facts have been separated from myth people have moved on to whatever is next.
I still prefer letting people say what they want, as people who consistently spout false information will no longer be believed. Even if there’s video of person A shooting person B and someone wants to go on social media and say it didn’t happen, I don’t believe in preventing that person from doing so. That person will only destroy their own credibility.
Sometimes censoring people will also have the opposite of the desired effect. People will often say “why do they not want to let that person’s information out” and they will fill in their own blanks

 

[Jeff Lieberman]

I still prefer letting people say what they want, as people who consistently spout false information will no longer be believed.

I truly wish I could agree with you, but, unfortunately, history, including very recent history, has proven that not to be the case. While some of us can distinguish between factual information and propaganda, others will blindly and passionately follow anyone who spews and repeats false information with great conviction. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda chief, understood, with catastrophic consequences, that "if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." One of my grandfathers lost his entire family thanks in large part to those repeated lies.

 

[Mark Gressman Jr]

You pretty much hit the nail on the head Todd. I was thinking of posting something similar, but couldn't word it as well as you did.

As soon as any topic becomes politicised, facts take a back seat to opinions/emotions. Same thing happened with covid and the vaccine. If people wanna believe something contrary to what current facts indicate, that's on them... things have a way of righting themselves in due time. I think keeping an open mind, and having a healthy dose of skepticism is prudent in most aspects of life.

I've said it elsewhere on here, but my life is a lot less aggravating without social media, and most media in general. Not to say some of this stuff isn't important, just not as important as my sanity, lol!

 

[Jeff Wright]

Don’t forget the Channeled Scablands debate.

That—unlike Grand Canyon—was carved out of the land by huge floods released by the failures of ice dams—a type of deluge.

That sounded like young-earth creationism, so Gradualists often dismissed it—as we saw in THE PANDA’S THUMB.

Barringer crater was called “cryptovolcanic” and Walter and Luis had a hard time selling impact theory…and some Maar type volcanic craters—especially on the lower gravity Moon—do resemble impact craters.

The Channeled Scablands and Asteroid-Impact denialists are just two examples of how the mainstream has gotten it wrong.